Master Blaster
Member
I have been corresponding with Chris Satullo the editorial page guy at the Philadelphia Inquirer over the frivolous Lawsuit exemption Bill for Firearms Manufacturers. I thought you might find our dialog interesting. He suffers from the typical Liberal disease, inability to grasp facts that are not to his liking/ support his view:
My statement:
Yesterday you printed an editorial decrying an attempt to sheild gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the industry. Why don't you folks take the time to actually read the legislation before you print an editorial that is misleading, if not an outright lie. If you did you would see that the legislation does not protect them if they violate the law, enable criminals to obtain firearms, or if they make a deffective product. The problem is that you have a political agenda which includes disarming law abiding citizens who own hand guns for sporting and defensive purposes. Perhaps we should propose a law that would prevent news manufacturers from using deadly high capacity lying devices such as News papers and television for the dissemination of dangerous lies, after all the pen is mightier than the sword.
Andrew, Wilmington, De 4/14/05
The Satullo response:
Dear Andrew - We do not have the agenda you claim. Our agenda is to do what's reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, and to reduce the lethality of the guns that have turned urban streets into killin fields. I think perhaps you should take a little time to understand what a civil suit is, as opposed to a criminal charge. One can be negligent and partially liable for the injuries done to another person without committing a crime. The selling of the weapon to the D.C. snipers is often cited as a classic example of the kind of activity that would not be criminal under current law, but was arguable negligent and would be shielded from civil penalty under this immunity bill. And by the way, we are subject to a very serious civil penalty, called the libel judgment, if we do in fact print a lie about someone. Libel is an expensive fact of life that every newspaper learns to live with, because we understand it's an important corrective against bad journalism. Chris
Chris Satullo 4/22/05
My statement:
Mr. Satullo, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the legal system, and of the case you reference as well. The ATF should have suspended the license of the Washington gun shop where the DC Sniper obtained his rifle long before this incident occurred due to a long history of failed ATF audits. Under the proposed legislation the fact that a rifle was provided to two people who were not legally permitted to own a firearm would be actionable against the gun shop in a civil suit. If they did it knowingly its crimminal, as it stands the theft was due to negligence on their part they are civily liable. The manufacturer however does not have the enforcement powers of the ATF, nor do they bear any legal responsibility for the negligent acts of the gunstore owner. This is much like Ford motors being sued for manufacturing an automobile that was subsequently misused in a drunk driving death. Please read the proposed legislation.
Andrew , Wilmington, DE 4/25/05
The Satullo response:
Dear Andrew - Your understanding of what the bill does and my understanding differ. My understanding is that is sharply narrows the definition of negligence on which civil claims could be based, knocking out the most common and pertinent one: that people guilty of negligence are liable to foreseeable victims of their conduct. The gun shop in DC Sniper case paid a $2.5 million settlement; under the immunity law, that lawsuit never gets filed. Or at least that's the gist of the analyses of the law I've seen. Re: gun makers. When assault weapons were technically illegal, many gun makers advertised and sold kits to enable people to evade the technical requirements of the law. That's not a "drunk driver in a Ford" scenario. that's more like a bad tires put on the Explorer in the factory scenario, isn't it? Why should they be immune from liability for that? chris
Chris Satullo 5/05/05
My Arguement:
Mr. Santullo, you are correct, my understanding differs from yours because I have actually read the bill. Please read the bill. The example you cited: That's not a "drunk driver in a Ford" scenario. that's more like a bad tires put on the Explorer in the factory scenario, isn't it?, No its not. In the case of the Explorer, Ford knowingly sold a product which was unsafe and defective, its failure, resulted in accidents. Bushmaster firearms did not enter a deffective product onto the market. The Xm-15E2s functioned perfectly, it did exactly what it was designed to do, fire bullets. Bushmaster did it legally per ATF regulations, the weapon complied with the Assault weapons ban as well, it was a legal product. The snipers a third party committed a crime, the owner of the Firing Line may have committed a crime as well or was at least negligent. The negliegnt parties are crimminally/ civilly liable under the proposed law.
Andrew Wilmington, Delaware 5/06/05
Answer from editor Satullo:
Dear Andrew - The Ford analogy, I believe, was to my assault weapons example. You insist on returning to the D.C. sniper case. In that case, I guess the analogy would be this: Is Ford liable if it continues to send its cars to a dealer who pays no attention to the proper paperwork for selling cars and routinely sells cars to people with suspended or no licenses. Does a manufacturer have no responsibility to make sure its distributors obey the law? Not a slam dunk in terms of liability, but certainly something worth examining in a court of law, rather than having the legislature preempt a citizen's right to his day in court to make a case. chris
Chris Satullo 5/09/05
Note the editor admits that he has not read the law only the "Gist of analysis that he has seen supports his view"
What happened to the idea that newspaper reporters should do a little reaearch and get the actual facts before they come out in opposition to the law????? Is it the job of the Philadelphia Inquirer to shill for anti-gun politicians????
My statement:
Yesterday you printed an editorial decrying an attempt to sheild gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the industry. Why don't you folks take the time to actually read the legislation before you print an editorial that is misleading, if not an outright lie. If you did you would see that the legislation does not protect them if they violate the law, enable criminals to obtain firearms, or if they make a deffective product. The problem is that you have a political agenda which includes disarming law abiding citizens who own hand guns for sporting and defensive purposes. Perhaps we should propose a law that would prevent news manufacturers from using deadly high capacity lying devices such as News papers and television for the dissemination of dangerous lies, after all the pen is mightier than the sword.
Andrew, Wilmington, De 4/14/05
The Satullo response:
Dear Andrew - We do not have the agenda you claim. Our agenda is to do what's reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, and to reduce the lethality of the guns that have turned urban streets into killin fields. I think perhaps you should take a little time to understand what a civil suit is, as opposed to a criminal charge. One can be negligent and partially liable for the injuries done to another person without committing a crime. The selling of the weapon to the D.C. snipers is often cited as a classic example of the kind of activity that would not be criminal under current law, but was arguable negligent and would be shielded from civil penalty under this immunity bill. And by the way, we are subject to a very serious civil penalty, called the libel judgment, if we do in fact print a lie about someone. Libel is an expensive fact of life that every newspaper learns to live with, because we understand it's an important corrective against bad journalism. Chris
Chris Satullo 4/22/05
My statement:
Mr. Satullo, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the legal system, and of the case you reference as well. The ATF should have suspended the license of the Washington gun shop where the DC Sniper obtained his rifle long before this incident occurred due to a long history of failed ATF audits. Under the proposed legislation the fact that a rifle was provided to two people who were not legally permitted to own a firearm would be actionable against the gun shop in a civil suit. If they did it knowingly its crimminal, as it stands the theft was due to negligence on their part they are civily liable. The manufacturer however does not have the enforcement powers of the ATF, nor do they bear any legal responsibility for the negligent acts of the gunstore owner. This is much like Ford motors being sued for manufacturing an automobile that was subsequently misused in a drunk driving death. Please read the proposed legislation.
Andrew , Wilmington, DE 4/25/05
The Satullo response:
Dear Andrew - Your understanding of what the bill does and my understanding differ. My understanding is that is sharply narrows the definition of negligence on which civil claims could be based, knocking out the most common and pertinent one: that people guilty of negligence are liable to foreseeable victims of their conduct. The gun shop in DC Sniper case paid a $2.5 million settlement; under the immunity law, that lawsuit never gets filed. Or at least that's the gist of the analyses of the law I've seen. Re: gun makers. When assault weapons were technically illegal, many gun makers advertised and sold kits to enable people to evade the technical requirements of the law. That's not a "drunk driver in a Ford" scenario. that's more like a bad tires put on the Explorer in the factory scenario, isn't it? Why should they be immune from liability for that? chris
Chris Satullo 5/05/05
My Arguement:
Mr. Santullo, you are correct, my understanding differs from yours because I have actually read the bill. Please read the bill. The example you cited: That's not a "drunk driver in a Ford" scenario. that's more like a bad tires put on the Explorer in the factory scenario, isn't it?, No its not. In the case of the Explorer, Ford knowingly sold a product which was unsafe and defective, its failure, resulted in accidents. Bushmaster firearms did not enter a deffective product onto the market. The Xm-15E2s functioned perfectly, it did exactly what it was designed to do, fire bullets. Bushmaster did it legally per ATF regulations, the weapon complied with the Assault weapons ban as well, it was a legal product. The snipers a third party committed a crime, the owner of the Firing Line may have committed a crime as well or was at least negligent. The negliegnt parties are crimminally/ civilly liable under the proposed law.
Andrew Wilmington, Delaware 5/06/05
Answer from editor Satullo:
Dear Andrew - The Ford analogy, I believe, was to my assault weapons example. You insist on returning to the D.C. sniper case. In that case, I guess the analogy would be this: Is Ford liable if it continues to send its cars to a dealer who pays no attention to the proper paperwork for selling cars and routinely sells cars to people with suspended or no licenses. Does a manufacturer have no responsibility to make sure its distributors obey the law? Not a slam dunk in terms of liability, but certainly something worth examining in a court of law, rather than having the legislature preempt a citizen's right to his day in court to make a case. chris
Chris Satullo 5/09/05
Note the editor admits that he has not read the law only the "Gist of analysis that he has seen supports his view"
What happened to the idea that newspaper reporters should do a little reaearch and get the actual facts before they come out in opposition to the law????? Is it the job of the Philadelphia Inquirer to shill for anti-gun politicians????
