Posted on 09/17/2014 8:12:06 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ... Introduced:
Feb 16, 2005 (109th Congress, 2005–2006)
Status:
Enacted — Signed by the President on Oct 26, 2005
Law:
This bill became the law numbered Pub.L. 109-92.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Summary
Library of Congress »
Section3 - Prohibits a qualified civil liability action from being brought in any state or federal court against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm, ammunition, or a component of ...
Side note: The sponsor of this bill was former Sen. Larry Craig, of Idaho and "wide stance" fame.
Side note 2: Many years BEFORE this bill was passed, stemming from the LIRR massacre, former Congresscritter Carolyn McCarthy sued Olin Corporation, the parent of Winchester Ammunition under products liability and negligence theories for their manufacture of the Black Talon bullets used by Colin Ferguson, the shooter. McCarthy's suit failed. Carolyn McCarthy retired because she contracted lung cancer, and in spite of having a 40+ year history of smoking, filed suit against asbestos manufacturers.
I agree, but that's not the purpose of the lawsuits. The purpose is to burden the defendants with legal bills and time spent preparing their defenses while simultaneously gathering publicity for the plantiffs' political agenda. As I said before, lawfare.
Some people are just stupid and listen to ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Why not just sue gas stations/oil companies because someone bought gas for their auto there, later got drunk and had an accident that killed someone? ....Makes as much sense.
“That’s them, your honor! They also tried to kill Rosie O’Donnell!”
These people are suing the ammo manufacturer for one reason only. Because they have the deep pockets. That is where they will find the windfall they are looking for. Why not sue the theater for making it a gun-free zone, thus allowing criminal shooters to have their way with no interference? Why not sue the parents of the shooter for not raising him “correctly”? Why not sue...well, you get the idea.
If the US had laws like England, this would not be happening. People sue here because even if they don’t get what they are asking for or don’t win the lawsuit, they can almost be assured of getting something out of a settlement. In Britain, the loser has to pay all court costs, theirs and the defendants, if they file frivolous suits or lose. People are not so quick to sue if it may hit their pocket book instead of creating a windfall for them.
Wasn't he wearing a tactical vest?
yes, IOW, not “body armor” but, rather, a simple nylon vest that wouldn’t have defeated a pellet gun.
Maybe they could sue Haines for making his underwear.
"Fixed it". No you made it worse. The police don't by "bullets", they by cartridges. Multiple cartridges are known as "ammunition".
A cartridge is composed of four separate components; the shellcase, the primer, the propellant powder and the bullet.
Bullets are to cartridges as flour is to bread, as cement is to concrete, etc. When will you ever learn the terminology?
Funny you should mention that. I was talking to an Air Force guy 2 weeks ago and he said the same thing. That’s why 40 year old single engine planes have a 6 figure price tag.
I would hope that if, God forbid, one of my loved ones were ever to die in an event like this, I’d be more inclined to be inspired by their life than I would be inclined to try and cash in on their death.
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.”
—David Horowitz, quoting unnamed SDS leader.
So sue Pepsi, McDonald’s and the local BBQ house for making people fat.
Are they going to sue Hollywood for making them go see that particular movie on that day?
Well they could sue the parents for not having that abortion???
And the clinic for not being open 24/7 for that service...
(Just thinkin’ outside the box)
That's obvious, since they no doubt sell stuff to government agencies.
I'll be here all week; try the eyeball soup.
John Edwards would approve.
My first thought also, how about the nut who runs his car through crowded sidewalks with full intentions of killing people.
sorry we been doun shooting bullets n rounds for 350 n years up herre in them mountsin, gon git yourself a real gun; usn` terminology is older than yur whiskers you neophytus aqbsurdicus we been shioootin bullets here n since 1644 go git yursdelf a real gun
As you say, the real reason for the suit isn't to win a high-dollar settlement, although they would like that of course, they're trying to bankrupt the online ammo sellers with lawyer fees and other legal expenses. Of course there isn't any justifiable reason for the lawsuit to begin with. Online buyers usually buy ammo in large quantities because (thanks to federal shipping regulations BTW) they get lower shipping costs per round than if they bought only a few hundred rounds per shipment.
Actually 4K rounds isn't an unusually large amount of ammo to buy at one purchase for people who do a lot of recreational shooting. When I lived in another state where I had access to a county owned shooting range that charged only $4 per day I did quite a bit of shooting myself, but not anywhere near as much as some of those other guys. I could only afford to shoot that much because I handloaded almost all my ammo and that kept the cost much, much lower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.