posted on January 29, 2003 07:52:48 AM newFinally common sense prevails
Two courtrooms wins for the Second Amendment.
BY COLLIN LEVEY Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
This week, two unlikely judges shared a small moment of justice on behalf of the Second Amendment.
In Florida, Judge Jorge Labarga, of butterfly ballot fame, threw out a $1.2 million award against the distributor of a handgun used by a kid to shoot his teacher. In the Ninth Circuit, Carter appointee Stephen Reinhardt returned to an earlier antigun opinion and deleted references to the work of Michael Bellesiles, the historian whose Bancroft Prize was revoked because of serious questions about the honesty of his scholarship.
Why are these judicial straws in the wind significant? They mark a trend that began to emerge last year. As Americans have begun to think differently about their personal safety, courts have begun looking at the gun question in a more sober light.
The Florida case turned interesting last November, when a state court jury held, in a suit brought by the widow of the murdered middle-school teacher, that the handgun maker was partially liable for the death of her husband. In addition to laying blame at the feet of another person, who failed to lock up the gun, and the school board, for failing to control the 17-year-old killer, the jury slapped Valor Corp. with $1.2 million in damages.
Though the school board and Valor reached out-of-court settlements before the civil lawsuit, wary eyes were trained on Mr. LaBarga, whose decision would have potentially important implications. Lawyers and legislators across the country have been working to chip away at product-liability protections for gun companies, and by extension, distributors. Here was a test.
Last summer California's Senate voted to make it easier for people to sue manufacturers for negligence, and several unresolved municipal lawsuits are going the same route. When Cincinnati wanted to sue the pants off gun companies, the Ohio Supreme Court allowed the city to go ahead on grounds that gun manufacturers were potentially liable for creating a "public nuisance."
This strain of thinking has made a few inroads lately. Just days before Mr. LaBarga threw out the Valor award, relatives of two sniper victims in Washington filed suit against the Windham, Maine-based maker of the XM15 rifle that was wielded to such deadly effect by John Allen Muhammed and John Lee Malvo.
-------------------
[b]All this comes against a background of renewed interest in guns for self-defense. Gun-club membership is up across the country. And unlike cigarettes, whose users aren't eager to be seen standing up and defending the industry, gun owners have always had a stronger political voice than gun manufacturers. The NRA, after all, is not a trade group--it's group of grass-roots gun owners.
The courts read the election results. Of the municipal lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, Chicago's was dismissed, Detroit's is bogged down, and the grandpappy of them all, the case filed by New Orleans, was torpedoed by Louisiana's own Supreme Court--a decision the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review. Those who hoped or feared the guns were the next tobacco should be beginning to realize it won't be.[/b]
posted on January 29, 2003 08:04:22 AM new
Yea for common sense. As more and more Americans feel the need to own guns to protect themselves and their property, I think we'll be seeing more cases decided like this. I sure hope so anyway. The gun makers weren't responsible for the actions of the person using them.
Another case that I support being dismissed is similar. If it goes further, we will contribute to the financial support his defense. I posted it in the other thread but am reposting it here. If everyone puts themself in this mans shoes, I believe they will agree he had a right to use a gun to defend himself and his family, in their home.
posted on January 29, 2003 10:37:27 AM new
LInda - the case only involves gun registration. He was not arrested or charged with shooting the intruder. The ony charge was that he had not yet registered the handgun.
Perhaps youshould go back and read the article again so that you canstop touting this case as an example of something that it is not.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:35:07 AM newIt does not matter that Mr. Dixon purchased the handgun legally in Florida, or that he was in the process of registering it in Brooklyn.
neonmania, see the recap above, then reread your own statement. (below)
The ony charge was that he had not yet registered the handgun.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:41:26 PM new
I own lots of guns. The ones I did not inherit, I registered if I was required to. Nobody is going to take them away from me unless I commit a crime with them, in which case I don't deserve to own them. Paranoia about registering handguns is silly..I for one believe that not only should handguns only be owned by those with a pristine criminal record, you ought to have to pass a safe usage test too, and NOT one given by the NRA. In addition, I'd be inclined to think a basic intelligence inventory ought to be required too..The federal and state governments know only too well how many guns are in private hands in this country. Anyone in government who would seriously think they could take them away is a fool, and would never be taken seriously.Nobody's going to take your guns, quit worrying about it..
posted on January 29, 2003 05:47:55 PM new
Bear - I read the statement.
He was IN THE PROCESS OF registering. For all we know he had filled out a form and it had sat on was on kitchen counter for the past three weeks waiting to be filed. The fact is the gun was not registered.
If I have talked to my insurance agency, set up the auto insurance I'm going to carry but haven't yet cut the check am I insured? I'm pretty sure that If I get pulled over on the way to the agents office I'm still going to get a ticket as an uninsured motorist.
What I was pointing out was that the implication was he was arrested for shooting the person when actually he was only charged with pocessing an unregistered weapon. No charges were brought against him for the actual shooting .
[ edited by neonmania on Jan 29, 2003 05:52 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2003 08:43:19 PM new
So he is charged with a crime that has not harmed anyone.
The weapon was used properly. The law is just a device to allow the police to control you without any relation to correct or bad action or intent.
We are none of us made safer by such laws. They don't belong on the books anymore than Sunday sales or cohabitation laws.
profe51 - Anytime you give authority discretion they misuse it. If you make tests to see who is entitled to carry it always ends up the people with money, politicians and ex-cops.
If you research gun control you will find that it started after the civil war when the bigots were terrified that black men would be able to own guns. Once they had laws that gave them discretion pretty quickly it was easy to say OK we don't need to allow those Irish or the Chinamen or even just the people from the poor side of town to have guns either.
[ edited by gravid on Jan 29, 2003 08:48 PM ]
posted on January 30, 2003 05:05:11 AM new profe51 - Anytime you give authority discretion they misuse it. If you make tests to see who is entitled to carry it always ends up the people with money, politicians and ex-cops.
I agree that authorities misuse discretion,but we require people to prove that they are capable of using an automobile before allowing them to drive, I just don't see the danger in requiring handgun users to prove that they understand the basic safety and operation of a deadly weapon.
If you research gun control you will find that it started after the civil war when the bigots were terrified that black men would be able to own guns. Once they had laws that gave them discretion pretty quickly it was easy to say OK we don't need to allow those Irish or the Chinamen or even just the people from the poor side of town to have guns either.
If this attempt to disarm the American public has been going on since the end of the Civil War, it really hasn't made much headway, has it? There are more guns in more people's hands now than ever before.
posted on January 30, 2003 10:29:22 AM new
I agree the people keep guns if it is legal or not. However that is an example of how the law destroys it's own value and credibility by making actions illegal that any reasonable persons know a huge chunk of the population will ignore. Prohibition was an excellant example of that.
I have yet to see that any drivers license test really tests much. I would be happy to see it as difficult to get a driver's license as it is a pilot's license. The death rate would go way down. I am weary of teen agers following me six inches off my bumper while looking in the back seat to talk with their friends for example.
Another aspect of it is that as technology improves I expect to see a lot of new weapons that would not be commercially developed if a normal firearm were available at a reasonable cost. In the next 20 years I expect to see electronic weapons due to the new ultracapacitors and led's capable of pumping high powered lasers. Also discharge weapons similar to a taser that will send a charge along a laser ionized path.
Second amendment proponents worry about having their guns taken away as a hedge against government tyrany. Even supposing you could shoot more bad politicians in a day than they have waiting in que to replace them, a gun is no longer a weapon of much use for a revolution. A very few people can really reach out to like a 1000 meters with one. Now if a government wanted to keep the people unarmed they would have to banish about 90% of the consumer goods we buy. For example a model airplane with a GPS unit and cell phone can be combined to make a personal cruise missile that will fly right in a window a hundred miles away and ruin somebody's day.
posted on January 30, 2003 02:08:04 PM new
I have always been Pro-Gun and always will be but I also have always said that anyone the wants to own a gun has to go take a weekend class on the care and use the weapon and learn local,State,Federal laws does not mater it be a hunting Rife/Shotgun or Handgun and show proof before the are able to buy it plus a background check.
As for people trying to sue Gun manufacturers if an owner of a Ford got road rage and tried to hurt me then I should be able to sue Ford who have a heck of a lot more money than Colt or Ruger.
It is all about greedy little lawyers.
As for Mr Dixon who protected his family by shooting the intruder :::clapping:::
However if I was the DA I would not charge Mr Dixon but, that is my opinon
What Mr. Dixon needs to worry about is the intruder sueing him
posted on January 30, 2003 03:07:01 PM newAs for people trying to sue Gun manufacturers if an owner of a Ford got road rage and tried to hurt me then I should be able to sue Ford who have a heck of a lot more money than Colt or Ruger
The situation with road rage is not even close to an analogy to a product liability case against the gun industry.
Using a product as it was intended and which causes harm when used as intended is the majority of what guns do, just as tobacco.
Does this mean that guns can not be possessed or otherwise used ? No. But it should place guns in the same catagory as other dangerous products such as explosives. In doing so greater care must be practiced when it comes to who can possess, sell, or come into contact with these dangerous items. When care is laking, sellers, owners, and everyone that brought the gun into the stream of commerce should be liable.
posted on January 30, 2003 05:19:21 PM new
Sure a gun is to produce harm. But I have the right under sone circumstances to cause harm.
That's like outlawing rat traps because they do harm. Well yeah - if you're on the side of the rats it makes sense.
posted on January 30, 2003 05:56:40 PM new
Yeah sure you can say a gun is produced to harm but it is also produced to use to protect or for sport but the same could be said for knifes, Just as a vehicle is produced for transportation put in the wrong hands could be used as a weapon
posted on January 30, 2003 06:23:53 PM new
Guns, when used as intended, are to bring greivous bodily harm to humans. The main argument for possession of guns is to shoot humans.
If guns are for sport, then there is no need for gun possession by the individual. He/she can rent the weapon at the sports site.
Rat traps do not harm humans. A knife used as intended does not harm humans, a car used as intended does not harm humans, unless there is a defect.
The only way to skew firearms out of the product liability ambit is to deny that guns are intended to shoot humans.
If we skew guns out of the personal weapon to shoot other humans realm, then there is no reason for individual possession.
If the lawyers do their job right and win the firearm product liability cases, greater care will be taken by the gun industry and gun owners when it comes to who gets their hands on guns, who you sell guns to, how you store your guns, and also flooding the market with cheap handguns.
posted on January 30, 2003 06:31:46 PM newIf guns are for sport, then there is no need for gun possession by the individual. He/she can rent the weapon at the sports site.
Rather silly analogy. Under that supposition, no fisherman should ever own his own rod or fishing tackle.
I do think, though, that someone who owns weapons for hunting has no need of automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons. Bit of overkill (pardon the pun)there...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 30, 2003 07:00:50 PM new
Cause of Death Number
of Deaths
Percentage of Deaths
MV Traffic 37,848 50.8%
Poisoning 12,333 16.5%
Fall 4,964 6.7%
Drowning 3,178 4.3%
Fire/burn 2,702 3.6%
Suffocation 2,499 3.4%
Unspecified 2,032 2.7%
Other Transport 1,371 1.8%
Other Land Transport 1,286 1.7%
Other Spec., classifiable 1,148 1.5%
Pedestrian, Other 1,142 1.5%
Natural/ Environment 1,097 1.5%
Struck by or Against 854 1.1%
Firearm 744 1.0%
Machinery 618 0.8%
Other Spec., NECN 520 0.7%
Pedal cyclist, Other 152 0.2%
Cut/pierce 76 0.1%
Overexertion 8 0.0%
Total Deaths 74,572
I tried to look for a category for fishing poles and rat traps I think they are under category of "other"
posted on January 30, 2003 07:05:28 PM new
The difference is that cars, knives, and swimming pools, when used as intended, do not kill. Being used as intended and doing harm is the foundation of firearm liability, as well as tobacco. It is a simple element of product liability that some seem incapable of grasping.
posted on January 30, 2003 07:08:40 PM new
Why are guns and tobacco legal then?
The government is very strict when it comes to products made that are intended to kill, i.e. drugs, terrorists, large game as pets, etc.
It could be said that alcohol should be banned because people commit dangerous acts while intoxicated and kill through drunk driving.
[ edited by wendywins on Jan 30, 2003 07:10 PM ]
posted on January 30, 2003 07:13:09 PM new
It has often been argued that any company that tried to introduce guns or tobacco today would never be able to get past government regulations.
The only reason they are in the commerce stream toady is because they were here even before the country was established.
posted on January 30, 2003 07:25:36 PM new
Yes, and the doctors are sued too. As well as medical device makers.
But we also forget how many people receive horrific wounds from guns and survive, many paralyzed.
If your product brings harm, then you pay the price, just as criminals must.
It amazes me that the same people that insist on primevil justice for individual actors are at the opposite opinion when they are asked to hold coporations or institutional actors such as police to be held to account.
posted on January 30, 2003 08:39:18 PM new
LuckyGifts:
um...could you please cite a reference for your figures...they show 744 firearm deaths..was that maybe in one state or something?? here's a slightly different set of numbers, and a brief quote from the link below it. The source is the CDC.
"In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm-related deaths in the United States, including 16,586 (58%) suicides,
11,071 (39%) homicides (including 270 deaths due to legal intervention), and 1,006 (4%)
undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.
CDC/National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 69.
In the United States in 2000, 64% of all homicides and 57% of all suicides resulted from the use of a firearm.
CDC/National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 44.
Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States, and have killed more
than 28,000 Americans every year since 1972. In three states (Alaska, Maryland and Nevada) and the
District of Columbia, firearm death rates in 1998 surpassed those for motor vehicles--the number one cause
of injury-related death in the United States.
CDC/National Center for Health Statistics, 2002."
posted on January 30, 2003 09:45:39 PM newPEOPLE are responsible for shooting other people. Lawsuits should be directed at the real culprit~the individual actor and his actions
People are responsible for flying planes.... so if Boeing sells a jet plane that falls apart at 450 mph, should we only blame the pilots, maintenance crew and passengers ? After all the pilot flew the plane and nobody made the people get on the plane.
How about the dynamite manfactorer who sells dynamite to anybody that walks through the door and they blow themselves and others up ? No responsibility for the dynamite industry ?
Same with guns. The firearm industry has been dumping guns on the market for years and wants no liability whatsoever for the product they have placed in the stream of commerce. We hold lawnmower and baby toy manufactorers to higher standards than the firearm industry. But people are wising up, especially urban populations that are paying for the emergency room care and rehabilitation of firearm victims.
posted on January 30, 2003 10:05:12 PM new
Everything you mention has it's inherent danger. Guns, tobacco, dynamite, airplanes, etc. all have warnings and instructions to their use and it's up to the consumer to decide whether they are capable of/willing to accept the risk.
Any company using 'deceptive' practices to sell products that are faulty and are GUARANTEED to harm people should be held responsible.
Everyone knows guns are dangerous and buy them with that knowledge. Guns are sold under the premise that the owner will use their discretion and receive adequate training in the safe handling of the weapon.
I've never heard of a manufacturer being sued over the sale of hunting knives used on people. Under your premise, these are items made only to kill; just as guns are.
posted on January 30, 2003 10:06:17 PM new
No, again the analogy doesn't fit. If a gun manufacturer makes a gun that blows up when the trigger is pulled, then it would fit your analogy.
Were the manufacturers of the jets that were used to destroy the WTC responsible for the devastation? Should they be sued? The answer to both questions is, of course, no. Likewise, gun manufacturers are not accountable for how the person who buys the gun uses it. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
