Why the law was necessary in the first place

[Lewkowski]

http://coloradopols.com/diary/74291/....J6fJuJJL.dpbs

"Back in May, we took note of a particularly troubling development in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shootings at the Century Theater in Aurora. The parents of Jessica Ghawi, one of the theatergoers killed when James Holmes opened fire in a packed movie theater on July 20, 2012, are facing dire financial straits after their lawsuit against online ammunition and body armor dealers who sold Holmes items used in the Aurora shooting was dismissed."

Because all it would take is one moronic jury to feel sorry for the family and millions would be lost. No one is happy about people dying but that's like suing fast food places because you got fat. I feel bad that these folks lost their daughter but ignoring the law and trying to blame the manufactures of legal arms is pretty retarded.

[Flixy]

Makes you wonder if their lawyer was honest about the case, given this was the law.

But to be honest I find the law a bit.. well, let's put it this way. I'm not against laws against frivolous lawsuits, and loser pays in those cases. However, I think it's not wise to make certain people exempt from lawsuits, and automatically require loser pays - what if a case arises where the plaintiff actually does have a good case, but it's automatically blocked? Similar reasoning to why I am against mandatory minimums, judges should have some leeway to adress the specifics of a case.

[Lewkowski]

As far as I understand the manufacture can still be sued if their product malfunctioned. There is no benefit to allowing people to sue a company to oblivion simply because juries are stupid. Its like suing Toyota for someone using their vehicle to deliberately run over someone. Stupid and MOST of the time there won't be an issue of the gun/bullet manufacture in winning a court case. But they still have legal fees. Oh and it only takes ONE idiotic soft hearted jury to see a weeping family on one side and a profitable company on the other. The law makes A LOT of sense and I'm glad it is there.

[Flixy]

As far as I understand the manufacture can still be sued if their product malfunctioned. There is no benefit to allowing people to sue a company to oblivion simply because juries are stupid. Its like suing Toyota for someone using their vehicle to deliberately run over someone. Stupid and MOST of the time there won't be an issue of the gun/bullet manufacture in winning a court case. But they still have legal fees.

If a judge can order frivolous plaintiffs to pay court costs, I'm fine with that. Recommending it, even, but not mandatory.

Also, this is about suing the people who sold the stuff, which is different from the manufacturer. If the guy had gone to a gun store and asked for the best weapons, body armour and ammunition to kill a lot of people, and they had recommended and sold that to him, would you say they could be sued? I certainly think so, but this law would block that too. I'm fine with giving a judge a lot of power to dismiss cases quickly if they are frivolous, I'm not fine with giving a group of people immunity (and not extend that to any other industry). It's almost class justice based on who the republicans like more.

Oh and it only takes ONE idiotic soft hearted jury to see a weeping family on one side and a profitable company on the other. The law makes A LOT of sense and I'm glad it is there.

Excellent reasoning against frivolous lawsuits in general (and juries, I suppose), any reason it should be restricted to gun companies? Any reason the gun industry is more vulnerable than, say, doctors being sued?

[Lewkowski]

Actually absolutely the store shouldn't be sued. Unless you want to ban all books that show how to make bombs or poison... this is a dangerous slippery slope.

Gun industry has powerful anti-gun lobbyists who would actively try to make the sale of guns unprofitable by bringing suits by the dozens.

[Flixy]

I'm not saying the store should be sued in this instance, I'm just saying it's crazy that (only) gun stores are completely exempt from civil suits in all circumstances. Seems a bit un-American, to be honest

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually absolutely the store shouldn't be sued.

They shouldn't be sued? When Flixy's scenario has them knowingly ADVISING the guy on how to best equip himself to carry out a killing spree? Unbelievable.

[Lewkowski]

They shouldn't be sued? When Flixy's scenario has them knowingly ADVISING the guy on how to best equip himself to carry out a killing spree? Unbelievable.

So again you are supportive of book bans that teach people how to make bombs?

[LittleFuzzy]

They are legitimate reasons for various explosive devices. Things which have nothing to do with mass-murder. I'm pretty sure that if you ask "what do I need to go murder a bunch of people," that murdering a bunch of people is pretty clearly on the table.

[Lewkowski]

They are legitimate reasons for various explosive devices. Things which have nothing to do with mass-murder. I'm pretty sure that if you ask "what do I need to go murder a bunch of people," that murdering a bunch of people is pretty clearly on the table.

I'm not excusing the behavior but I'm also not going to be pushing for even more laws (which could easily be abused) restricting freedom of speech. Under your logic a newspaper who wrote a scathing article on the holes in airport security might be arrested because they helped aid a terrorist attack.

[LittleFuzzy]

If a journalist was actually asked "what are the holes I can use to get through airport security" and he tells them, you can bet your ass that he'd get arrested. They know what the person is planning to do and still tell them. This isn't information floating around out there to be adapted by a third party, the scenario is being given as actual advice and aid in accomplishing an attack. That's accessory at a minimum. It is fundamentally unlike a book. That is general, without a specific context and you don't know who might get it or how they might use it. In Flixy's scenario you have specific and immediate knowledge about the intent to make an attack and you knowingly give aid which advances it.

[Flixy]

I'm not excusing the behavior but I'm also not going to be pushing for even more laws (which could easily be abused) restricting freedom of speech. Under your logic a newspaper who wrote a scathing article on the holes in airport security might be arrested because they helped aid a terrorist attack.

Who's saying anything about new laws? There's a difference between proposing new laws, and giving one specific industry blanket immunity in whatever circumstances. Which is what you're supporting.

[Veldan Rath]

If a journalist was actually asked "what are the holes I can use to get through airport security" and he tells them, you can bet your ass that he'd get arrested. They know what the person is planning to do and still tell them. This isn't information floating around out there to be adapted by a third party, the scenario is being given as actual advice and aid in accomplishing an attack. That's accessory at a minimum. It is fundamentally unlike a book. That is general, without a specific context and you don't know who might get it or how they might use it. In Flixy's scenario you have specific and immediate knowledge about the intent to make an attack and you knowingly give aid which advances it.

Could it even count as conspiracy, or is that too much of a reach?

[LittleFuzzy]

Conspiracy is a hard charge to prove so it's probably too much of a reach. There presumably isn't criminal intent; they're trying to make a legal, if negligent, sale.