Firearm Manufacturers Target D.C. Strict Assault Weapon Liability Act

July 20, 2005

  • July 21, 2005 at 1:13 am
    Dumbfounded says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is absolutely ludicrous! How can the manufacturer of a firearm be held liable for the criminal acts of an individual? When was the last time somebody sued Ford or Nissan when a drunk driver of one of their vehicles plowed into their car? Why should Winchester, Remington, Berretta, etc. be held to a higher standard of care for the manufacture of their product?

    Last time I looked, it was in the Constitution that people have the right to bear arms. I have no intention of arguing that there shouldn’t be some limits or restrictions on the type of weapons available to the general public. But unless the act of making a gun available to the individual directly causes them to go out and shoot somebody, how can the manufacturer be responsible?

    Another point to ponder. Does the company that makes the BULLET have any responsibility in the matter? After all, a gun is pretty harmless without ammunition!

  • July 21, 2005 at 1:33 am
    GDSVT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If this law sticks, our military will be buying it,s small arms from China. After all, who in their right mind would manufacture firearms, with such a broad definition of liability. This is just some poorly thought out anti-gun legislation, up-held by an anti-gun judge.

  • July 21, 2005 at 1:51 am
    Read Again says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The article notes that the law is only directed against manufacturers of assault weapons.

    I hunt, and the only use I see for assault weapons is in attacking people. I rarely see an instance that anyone would need to wade into an armed herd of deer with an assault weapon.

  • July 21, 2005 at 1:56 am
    Dumbfounded says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m also a hunter, and fully agree that the odds of running into a deer that shoots back are pretty slim.

    I also have no problems restricting access of assualt weapons to military and police as the general public should not need a weapon specifically designed for combat purposes.

    That said, see my original point. Why should the manufacturer be held liable for the criminal acts of an individual? Build the laws according to the need (i.e. personal accountability for your actions), but do not punish those not responsible for the crime.

  • July 21, 2005 at 6:03 am
    gordo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The point that most people miss when they say “I don’t see any reason for a person to have an assault weapon.” is that “need” has nothing to do with it. Why does a soccer mom in Manhattan, Ny. need a Ford Excursion, they don’t. The point is that it is a legal product that properly used can bring enjoyment to the owner, misused it can be deadly. How do we determine who decides what is too dangerous for the “common person” to handle? All of this beside the fact that common sense states that you can’t hold someone responsible for the actions of another.

  • July 22, 2005 at 7:57 am
    GDSVT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Which definition of “Assault Weapon” are we going to use?? As most of us know, as far as the media and politicians are concerned, the term “assault weapon” is in the eye of the beholder. This is no more than a “back-door” attempt at the eventually elimination of public ownership of all firearms.

  • July 22, 2005 at 9:55 am
    S.E.Mettler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think you miss the entire point in trying to justify legislation that applies to so called “assault weapons”. Which definition are they using? When you allow these people to legislate which weapons you can own, you also tell them that they can legislate what kind of home or vehicle you can own, what kind of school you can send your kids too, etc. These so called “assault weapons” are usually defined as military looking firearms that have some specific characteristic that sets them aside from other weapons i.e. vertical handgrip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor. These features have nothing to do with the weapon’s ability to inflict injury to a mass number of people.
    Keep in mind that the basic bolt action rifle that most hunters use during Deer hunting is a direct decendant to one of the most widely recognized battle weapons ever developed, the 98 Mauser. This weapon was used successfully by the German army and others through (2) world wars. The U.S. Army was so impressed that it developed it’s own version in the 1903 Springfield.
    The reality of any attempt to criminalize the possession of a particular type of firearm is that it is a starting point. If you can legislate against magazine capacity of 20rnds max, you can legislate against 15rnds. max. Then 10 and so on. If you legislate against semi-autos, you can legislate against pump-action and other systems until we’re back to percussion caps or flintlocks. I’ve been a California cop for twenty years and have watched this legislative process limit what kind of firearms can be possessed in my home state. I’ve testified in local courts as a “Weapons Expert” in illegal possession cases where the Court itself did not understand the California State definition of an “assault weapon” even though at that time assault weapons were listed by weapon name, model number and manufacturer. It has been a monumental waste of time and taxpayer money and has’nt decreased crime at all. If crooks want to be armed, they will. And they will carry what they want and modify it to suit themselves. They won’t buy it from a local sporting goods store, they will buy it off the street or steal it from someone’s home. The only people who are being subjected to any gun laws are the honest ones. If you can’t see that, then you’ve got a problem.

  • July 22, 2005 at 11:44 am
    MarkoG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What do ‘assault weapons’, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy have in common??

    They don’t really exist!!

    It’s about time we stopped arguing about definitions and adopted a no-compromise attitude towards our God-given rights.

    If someone doesn’t like guns or is afraid of them they aren’t required to own any; they are required to keep their grubby paws off of mine!!

    MG

  • July 22, 2005 at 2:36 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A lot of the manufacturers that make assault weaapons also make the deer rifles hunters use. If a person sues over use of an assault weapon they could very well put the company out of business. Which means no more deer guns. Why don’t you punish the criminals, hold them responsible for their actions. Leave the gun companies alone otherwise other product manufacturers will be sued for the same reasons. Why is it that in America it is OK to sue someone else for your own lack of judgement?

  • July 22, 2005 at 2:46 am
    Dumbfounded says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    AMEN Dave! My point exactly. Let’s sue Folgers because I burned my tongue on their coffee! Go after Ford because the drunk driver’s Taurus ployed into my truck! Where does it end?

    Unless the occurrence was directly attributable to the improper functioning of the product (i.e. product defect), there should be no liability on the part of the manufacturer.

    It’s time we start excercising some common sense and holding people accountable for their own actions again.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*