"Protective" laws

[Bill of Rights]

I saw this in today's newspaper, and frankly, I'm a bit incensed.

Everyone, I'm sure, remembers the furor that was created when the firearms industry asked for protection from frivolous lawsuits, filed after someone used their product as it was intended to be used (that is, they pointed it, pulled the trigger, and only the shooter's judgment is responsible for where the bullet goes) and some poor little altar boy (who somehow happened to be robbing a liquor store or was involved in a meth deal) was taken away from his grieving mother. Notably, no one sues Ford, Chevy, or Dodge when their vehicles are used for drunk driving, in drive-by shootings or are involved in cases of vehicular manslaughter.
Presumably, we all recall how the MSM decried the laws protecting lawful commerce in arms, and claimed that the manufacturers rightly should bear at least some if not all of the responsibility for the misuse of their product.

Well, apparently, that only applies to the industry we all support. They're now pushing for a new "Shield Law" protecting reporters and their (confidential) sources and saying how it's wrong that a reporter should have to divulge his/her sources. OK, so let's break this down. Let's just say for just a moment that a reporter writes a story that has no basis in fact at all, and cites an anonymous source. (Not very far-fetched-I recall at least one reporter who had to return an award (Pulitzer, I think) for just this type of shenanigans.)
Under the new law, no one could ever discover this falsehood, so the intentional fabrication that is fully the reporter's doing is fair game for protection despite the fact that the decision to tell or not tell the truth is solely that of the reporter, but the lawful and honest trade in firearms is unworthy of similar protection from lawsuit for the criminal misdeeds of those who use their product and have it function as intended.

Gee... you don't suppose there's some bias going on here, do you? Naaaah.. that would mean that the MSM was showing favoritism. Surely THAT's not happening! (Sarcasm off)

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I really object to the notion that the 4th estate is somehow the guardian of the public trust. All this overly romanticized nonsense about the press being the last refuge of whistle blowers and the wrongfully abused poor is nothing more than media hype. Newspapers and other media outlets are nothing more than highly competitive, even cutthroat businesses. They are in it for the money, period. As far as reporters go, I've known a few. And, I've yet to meet one that I respect. I really don't see any reason to allow them a privilege of non-disclosure.

[kcty]

...no one sues Ford, Chevy, or Dodge when their vehicles are used for drunk driving, in drive-by shootings or are involved in cases of vehicular manslaughter.


I love the analogy. Now I know who to sue when I get in a car accident on my way to work. Doesn't really matter if the police say it was my fault or not, it was the car that did it. Not me. I was just the innocent driver at the time. Could have been anyone behind the wheel.

The company I worked for several years ago was hired by Winchesters lawyers to help defend them in a wrongful death suit against the family of someone who died while someone else was using their firearms. Basically, the guy had loaded his own shells and was at a skeet shooting competition and the shotgun in his hands exploded killing the guy next to him. That man's family sued the man that shot the gun, the maker of the re-loader he used and the maker of the shotgun he used. Turned out that Winchester was able to prove that it was not a malfunction of the gun and the jury agreed that they were not at fault. On the other hand the re-loader company didn't have a wad detector on the re-loader and they were not so lucky. They were found 25% at fault because of that. According to all the tests done by Winchester, the man forgot to put a wad in the shell and filled it with power instead. Blew half the shell casing out with the pellets.

Yes, this is a sad story, but why was Winchester involved and why did they have to spend so much money defending themselves? Yes, if they had a history of guns exploding or a history of poor firearms, okay, maybe. But why point the finger so quickly at the firearms company when it is obvious that something else went wrong. It's like me blaming the car company for my carelessness when driving a car.

Gun Manufacturers should have protection from frivolous lawsuits, but liberals won't let that happen. Most of them would be pleased as punch if they were sued out of business. Suing the gun manufacturer is no different than suing McDonald's for getting fat. I mean really..... Does this mean that my family can sue McDonald's if I die from eating unhealthy? No, my family would get laughed at if they tried that, but suing a gun company for the same reason is serious understandable. :?

Sorry, I had to get that rant out. It makes me so mad. :evil:

Anyway, we know the media lies on a regular basis to further their agenda. They have been caught more regularly now because of the bloggers and the Internet (talk radio plays a part too). They don't like it when the general public doesn't believe them and they want the sheep to just blindly follow them again. That is wrong. If someone as big as Dan Rather is doing (and getting caught), probably most others are as well. Wrong.... It's wrong!!

[Bill of Rights]

Gun Manufacturers should have protection from frivolous lawsuits, but liberals won't let that happen. Most of them would be pleased as punch if they were sued out of business.

Actually... the reason you now get a cable lock with every new gun is because of Public Law 109-092, which started as S397, signed into law almost exactly two years ago today. Named the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill at the time, it protects manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms and ammunition from liability for damages, injunctive, or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products.

Click here for official transcript (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109XbBmdp:e0:)

It passed, but boy was there a fight before it did!

Blessings,
M

[kcty]

Glad to hear that. This lawsuit as about 10 years ago (wow, time files). Not sure if they would be involved in the same type of lawsuit today or not. In my opinion, it should depend on whether evidence points to a fault in the manufacturing of the gun or not. If the gun was manufactured poorly and is unsafe, then I can understand getting them involved, but not because of what someone else did.