If you've been following the news lately, you might be aware that Congress passed (and presumably the Preznit will sign) a bill limiting the liability of gun manufacturers, essentially protecting them from the threat of being sued by victims of gun crimes.
This was, by the way, a top issue for the NRA this year.
You know what? Whatever. We're not even surprised enough to be pissed off anymore. Just a little sad that Barrow puts gun manufacturers' bottom line above victims' rights.
But we're really a little more interested in whether he thinks that stuff like this is going to:
A. Endear him to conservative voters in the new 12th.
B. Get him an NRA endorsement over Max Burns.
"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat" (Harry Truman, 05/17/52: Complete speech available here.)
Of course, there's also the possibility that Barrow legitmately believes that people shouldn't be able to sue gun manufacturers, and we admit that.
But, consider this. The guy made his bundle as a trial lawyer, and then proceeded to raise money for his campaign mostly from trial lawyers. And by trial lawyers, we generally mean personal injury types, just the guys who stand to make lotsa dough by suing gun manufacturers on behalf of victims. Perplexing why he'd support this (which to trial lawyers, amounts to a type of "tort reform"), since it threatens his livelihood and that of a lot of his donors, if this is the first step to serious national tort reform. Coupled with the bill limiting the liability of certain drug makers that also passed, we think it might be an incremental step towards tort reform.
So, we guess screwing your donors is worth it. As long as you're buddy-buddy with the NRA.
Related: The roll call
Text of the bill
Spit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
You know, I don't know about this one.
Granted, I don't particularly like it when Democrats run right or Republicans run left (though I do admit, that's a necessary evil in the world of politics), but not every one is ideologically pure. So while I love the Truman quote - it's one of my favorites actually - I think that particular quote lines up more with someone like a Joe Lieberman, who for all practical purposes, is a Republican.
Though if Barrow is shamelessly running right to get elected - and there is some evidence of that with regard to his stance on flag burning, gay marriage and now this - it does signify he could be guilty of this.
As far as the actual bill, I don't know. I'm no NRA member by any means, but I don't really get the point of suing the manufacturers. I'd want the person who fired the weapon to face the music - and if a person illegally sold the firearm to the one who used it, then same goes for them - but to sue someone who makes something which is perfectly legal to own in this country and has nothing to do with how someone uses that product seems a bit off to me.
That is, of course, unless the manufacturer is working to abuse the law or puts out a faulty product which is injuring or killing people. But I don't know if this legislation covers that or not ... anyone?
Holy Lord ... I may agree with Buck on something.
Can I be with Johnathan and Buck on this (sort of) and still think Barrow is a douche and voted for it for the wrong reasons?
yeah, that's kind of where I am too. Seriously, guns aren't like tobacco. There wasn't an industry-wide gun conspiracy to hide the fact the can f-ing kill you.
But, I don't think that gun manufacturers deserve any sort of special protection from liability either. If a lawyer can prove a case to an enlightened jury (which I doubt), then fine. We have a justice system for a reason, and it works just fine.
So, I don't support a handout for this industry, especially since it doesn't even need a bailout.
However, I would point out that this bill is apparently designed not with individuals' lawsuits in mind, but to hamper governments from suing gun makers in cases similar to the tobacco lawsuits that actually succeeded.
Yeah, exactly. Hence the feelings of conflict. I'm not down with all this "let's get rid of the consumer's right to sue" legislation, but I don't like the tobacco lawsuits either. It really is a love note to the NRA, but I also don't like the idea of the government suing gun manufacturers. Bluck.
Well, one might say that contingency lawyers take only the cases they think they can settle. There's a difference - if you can convince the manufacturer that it's going to cost them a bundle to fight, why not settle for a smaller expenditure? That's a win for the lawyer - even though a sensible juror would see right through it, the defendant can't necessarily take that chance. Served on a jury lately?
Instead of limits on who can be sued, how about a "loser pays" system ? Serves the same purpose, since now the contingency lawyer has to weigh the likelihood of settlement vs. the bundle he'll have to fork over to an army of Smith & Wesson lawyers if his suit fails...now instead of risking receiving ~nothing~ for his hours, he risks losing a substantial amount for each hour.
"How do we protect my right to recourse while at the same time protecting my right to pursue commerce?"
That's a rational question. For what its worth, I like the system we have now, and am not nearly enough of a legal scholar to suggest any meritorious changes. But, I would point out that lawsuits (any court proceedings, really) are based on the facts and the law.
Sometimes, it takes awhile to filter through all of that to decide whether a case is frivolous or not. My two cents, it's the price we pay for having the justice system we do.
And besides, efficiency isn't my number one requirement in a system of justice. I doubt it's anyone else's either.
Why is it that those who preach free market and no regulation 99% of the time want to pass laws to distort the market when it comes to the civil justice system?
You guys can't have it both ways; either we regulate business more closely, a la most european countries, or we allow our current system of 'private enforcement' through private lawsuits, to provide the economic check necessary to minimize the production and selling of dangerous products.
Personally, I think stricter regulation on the front end is more efficient, spreads costs more evenly, and results in less deaths and injuries. Some of y'all might call me a socialist for that, though.
Darren
I'm not sure I threw out a general accusation, but I will point out some anecdotal evidence. (Is that the same thing?) I get called for jury duty about once a year, and I have no reason to think my experiences are unique. Despite being engaged in a profession that relies on logical deduction and critical thinking, I get chosen to serve almost every time. Typically I am the most experienced juror of the twelve or fourteen selected. I like to serve as foreman, so things will move along quickly, which is where I have a problem. In almost every jury I've served on (seven in the last ten years) there is at least one individual who depends on emotion to make a decision, notwithstanding the obvious facts that are germaine to the case. Quite often one side or the other tries to sway the emotions of the jury, to the detriment of a decision founded on facts. Getting everyone to lay their emotions and attitudes aside in order to do the task with which we are charged is sometimes damn near impossible. So the reasoned, fair and just decision depends on an emotional aspect which is impossible to separate, and not always relevant. One side or the other making a powerful emotional appeal can make all the difference.
And dare I mention the additional costs of appeals of verdicts and awards? That kind of work doesn't come cheap...
(Another anecdote) I am watching a case right now involving the State - completely frivolous and without merit, yet so far (ante litem, no discovery yet) everone has to proceed as if it is going to trial. I can see how it would be ~much~ cheaper to pay this individual to go away, rather than litigate. (I only hope the State has the stones not to cave) If the plaintiff had to risk paying the State, then they might reexamine their case.
I would only add that you may be right that 95% of the time juries come to a just asnd fair decision - according to one of the parties, anyway... You should have seen the defense counsel's face when I last handed in a verdict - he looked like I'd just slapped his mama...
I wonder how often the losing party thinks the decision was just and fair? Perhaps that's an indication of a frivolus suit?
I'm still astounded someone gets called more than I do (6 times in 10 years). Of course, I never get picked. And I don't even wear my "I heart gangsta rap" T-shirt.
Yeah, the result is usually reasonable, at least in my experience. But the getting there is so damn difficult, that I feel anyone less reasonable than me will go with the flow...with unreasonable results. Maybe general humankind is better in the aggregate than I give them credit for...
The only suits that this would deal with are those that seek to impose liability on gun manufacturers for the crimes of gun users. It does not affect the liability of gun manufacturers for the crimes of gun manufacturers. In the process, we get a ban on cop killer, armor piercing bullets, and gun locks are now required for new guns. Less frivolous litigation and more gun safety. A good deal in my book.
I am woefully ignorant about this whole concept. I don't understand the rationale behind holding manufacturers or retailers culpable for our own decisions. Now I am obese and I love McDonalds but I don't hold them responsible for my weight problem; they didn't force me to eat their food. And I don't see how we can hold gun manufacturers responsible when someone uses their product illegally unless they make using their product illegally an easy option - like giving directions for converting guns to automatic.
Would someone please explain the logic behind this to me? I am sincere in wanting to know, not being sarcastic.
Thank you
Post a Comment