California governor signs law allowing gun violence victims to sue firearm manufacturers for damages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably stops at General Motors, or are they too still big to fail?

If you are going to be liable for misuse, that’s got to go with everything.
 
Firearms manufacturers all need to get together and collectively withdraw from the California market, including sales to LE and government agencies. Better to take a financial hit than keep feeding the beast that’s slowly eating them. They should also require all their distributors and retailers to sign an agreement (including crippling financial consequences) not to sell to CA agencies.

If guns are so bad then we should all pull together to make sure CA doesn’t have any.
 
The .gov will give the police and any other law enforcement agencies weapons.

Never gonna happen.
 
Great. Now I can sue Ford for that time I got rear ended because a driver dropped his cell phone in the floor boards.

Equally as ludicrous. If the same type of civil litigation was directed to any other "protected" manufacturer, our already bloated civil system would be 10 times worse.
 
Assemblymember Phil Ting, who co-authored the bill, said hitting the bottom line of gun manufacturers "may finally compel them to step up to reduce gun violence by preventing illegal sales and theft."

How would a manufacturer even begin to tackle either of those three things, assuming this was the actual intent behind the law (which it's not)? The latter two are completely out of the scope of manufacture altogether, unless one believes it's possible to invent un-stealable, un-illegally saleable products.

As for reducing so-called "gun violence", the bill is terribly sloppy. There's no clear definition of what "abnormally dangerous" even means. In the code of conduct, it only directs gun makers not to create products that are overly "assaultive" (literally, their word) nor capable of being converted to an illegal variant, nor marketable to minors or prohibited persons.

This is mostly a nothing burger.
 
More "feel good" legislation enacted without careful study, but with horrendous intended and unintended consequences. Unleashing the Proposition 65 ambulance chasers is an act of war in my book. The economic consequences of that needs to be visited upon the heads of those who meddle with forces beyond their comprehension, in the pocket as well as the ballot box.
 
Master Blaster said:
Both sides want to control us!
Click to expand...
When is the last time you saw a politician voting for less spending, repealing laws instead of voting for more, voting to eliminate govt jobs in favor of private enterprise including theirs? Now some have run for office promising to do so, but how many have followed through? Government is by definition a form of control. All nations eventually fail or restart because the life cycle of an industrialized nation always leads to larger and larger government and more control and corruption and eventual decline or overthrow, just like almost all life forms get old and die.
A man once wrote than change only comes about through violence or the threat of violence. Believe it.
 
herrwalther said:
The number of people and politicians that support Ukraine while wanting to take firearms away from Americans is hilarious and slightly disturbing.
Click to expand...
Most Americans are probably not aware this is not the first time we have sent large numbers of firearms to civilians fighting to save their country. We did the same thing, except in that case it was individual Americans donating their own firearms, to be sent to England to arm the Home Guard to protect against a possible invasion from Germany. Anytime the populace is denied arms to defend themselves it turns out badly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(United_Kingdom)

Perhaps we need a conservative leader, hopefully the next President, to champion the idea of officially establishing an American home guard, to protect against tyrants foreign and domestic.
 
plainsdrifter said:
Yup, you can thank Texas legislators with their incessant anti abortion lawsuit strategies and SCOTUS for this one.
SCOTUS conservatives ruled its ok so its gonna stick.
Click to expand...
They may want to invoke the Texas law, but it's not an accurate comparison. Texas banned abortions after 6 weeks, and allows people to sue doctors for breaking that law. In California, they're trying to allow people to sue gun manufacturers who haven't broken any laws, simply because their product was used illegally. I'm not a fan of the Texas law, but it's not the same thing.
 
"violating state laws"

New York and CA

Sooooo...I advocated since the 50 Caliber ban that all gun, ammo and accessory manufacturers pull out of CA and break all contracts with the state (plus a few others--NY for sure). If a company decides it cannot break the contract, then fulfill the contract and do not renew.

I think that companies need to start working together just like the media operates.
 
citizenconn said:
Perhaps we need a conservative leader, hopefully the next President, to champion the idea of officially establishing an American home guard, to protect against tyrants foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...
I'll settle for one - anyone - that lets out a little chuckle and says, "What's this gun violence stuff? That's nothing but poor grammar".
 
This is a very slippery slope they are going down. Even though you may not live in a liberal state or area, if you are paying attention, they are coming to you through your TV, spreading their agenda in every show, fake news and commercial. They are also indoctrinating our children.
Hitler said " Whoever has the youth, has the future"
 
They are using the same precedence and thought process that has been used against tobacco companies, and most recently, against Walgreens, Walmart and CVS who were recently ordered to pay $650 million over the legal doctor prescribed sale of opioids. They are just applying the rational to guns now.
 
Styx said:
They are using the same precedence and thought process that has been used against tobacco companies, and most recently, against Walgreens, Walmart and CVS who were recently ordered to pay $650 million over the legal doctor prescribed sale of opioids. They are just applying the rational to guns now.
Click to expand...
The difference is that tobacco used as intended causes cancer. Firearms used within legal boundaries and as intended do not generally kill/injure except via legal usage. It’s not the same. For opioids and benzodiazepines there is evidence that they misled the public and patients as to the risks. Used as prescribed a huge amount of people became addicted to both. They also were way overprescribed. Again, not identical.

To someone else’s post, there is a big difference between holding a car manufacturer responsible for a faulty product that leads to death or injury, used within legal guidelines, versus someone let’s say plowing a car into a crowd on purpose.

I’m all for firearms manufacturers being sued for faulty products.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top