California Gov. Gavin Newsom Passes Bill Allowing Victims to Sue Gun Manufacturers

[thebobmaster]

Newsom announces Texas-style bill that would let residents sue gun makers

New California legislation encouraging litigation against makers and dealers of assault rifles and ghost guns is modeled on a Texas law allowing people to sue abortion providers.

www.politico.com

This bill uses basically the same language as the Texas abortion bill, making it pretty obvious what Governor Newsom is trying to do here. All I can do is point at Texas and laugh. I don't really support this bill, mind you. No one should be sued for what someone else decides to do with what is legally made...but at the same time, Newsom said at the time Texas passed their bill and the Supreme Court of Texas OK'd it that the same logic could be used for gun control...and here we are.

 

[Leg End]

"How dare you do this thing with the intent to subvert the rights of the citizens of your state! Now excuse me while I copy your example with the intent to subvert the rights of the citizens of my state because I don't like them having those rights!"

Fuck this state and double fuck you, Newsom. You're the one I have no patience for.

 

[Buyetyen]

Sadly, irl trolling is now what we get as policy in the US. Fuck, I'm tired.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, now that 6-3 Supreme Court has to choose between guns and aborhahahaha

Who am I kidding, they'll be more than happy to be utter hypocrites

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Next make it legal to sue someone for having a Republican sign on their lawn, keep doing dumb shit until it all has to be stopped. Grind the courts to a halt.

 

[CM156]

"no u" - Gavin Newsom

 

[Gordon_4]

I’ll admit Law and Order isn’t exactly legal scholarship but I seem to recall an episode where they tried this and it didn’t work very well. Besides the underlying concept reads as faulty as fuck. Glock are no more responsible for their customer base being irresponsible or evil than Ford or General Motors are.

Like I understand a desire to hold someone responsible for senseless acts of violence and stupidity, but this is not gonna work. Mind it’s gonna be interesting to see - assuming Newsom is not blowing all the smoke up all the asses - the debate surrounding this.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I’ll admit Law and Order isn’t exactly legal scholarship but I seem to recall an episode where they tried this and it didn’t work very well. Besides the underlying concept reads as faulty as fuck. Glock are no more responsible for their customer base being irresponsible or evil than Ford or General Motors are.

Like I understand a desire to hold someone responsible for senseless acts of violence and stupidity, but this is not gonna work. Mind it’s gonna be interesting to see - assuming Newsom is not blowing all the smoke up all the asses - the debate surrounding this.

Well it's interesting in that it doesn't matter. The logic of the law and why you can sue someone over it is that you feel offended. For Texas you feel offended that someone offered an abortion, so you sue them. Thus in California, you sue a gun maker because they dared make a murder weapon. Legality doesn't matter.

 

[CM156]

I’ll admit Law and Order isn’t exactly legal scholarship but I seem to recall an episode where they tried this and it didn’t work very well. Besides the underlying concept reads as faulty as fuck. Glock are no more responsible for their customer base being irresponsible or evil than Ford or General Motors are.

Like I understand a desire to hold someone responsible for senseless acts of violence and stupidity, but this is not gonna work. Mind it’s gonna be interesting to see - assuming Newsom is not blowing all the smoke up all the asses - the debate surrounding this.

There's a federal law that says you can't sue gunmakers for the crimes committed by their products. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Detractors of this law argue that it deprived people of the avenue of a legitimate public nuisance lawsuit. Supporters argue these lawsuits were and are blatant attempts to get gun control though litigation and not legislation, knowing that due to the American Rule (both parties pay their own legal fees in most circumstances), the gun control supporters don't have to win any of the suits to cost the gun industry money. And that by filing enough of these lawsuits, you can get gun control though death by a thousand cuts.

Of course, this law is basically a shot across the bow of SCOTUS saying "if you uphold the Texas law, no right is safe from this sort of legal chicanery." It's good to remind people on all ends of the political spectrum that the tactics they use can also be used against them.

 

[Trunkage]

There's a federal law that says you can't sue gunmakers for the crimes committed by their products. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Detractors of this law argue that it deprived people of the avenue of a legitimate public nuisance lawsuit. Supporters argue these lawsuits were and are blatant attempts to get gun control though litigation and not legislation, knowing that due to the American Rule (both parties pay their own legal fees in most circumstances), the gun control supporters don't have to win any of the suits to cost the gun industry money. And that by filing enough of these lawsuits, you can get gun control though death by a thousand cuts.

Of course, this law is basically a shot across the bow of SCOTUS saying "if you uphold the Texas law, no right is safe from this sort of legal chicanery." It's good to remind people on all ends of the political spectrum that the tactics they use can also be used against them.

Okay, so how was the recent case against Remington allowed?

 

[CM156]

Okay, so how was the recent case against Remington allowed?

Boy that's a really long answer that I'm not sure I can do justice to the topic due to my immense bias on the topic as well as not following the case closely in recent years.
I could sum it up as (and keep in mind, not legal advice or analysis, just my opinion) alleging facts in such a way to create a plausible enough dispute over facts to get around the motions to dispose of the case. They focused on the marketing of the gun. I would point out that the shooter in the case killed his mother and stole her gun, so I don't see how Remington's marketing could be an issue plaintiffs could focus on. Courts, however, disagreed with me.