# Supreme Court dismisses lawsuits against gunmakers



## Cryozombie (Nov 19, 2004)

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/top/e19gunsuits.htm



> The court recognized that people, not manufacturers, are responsible for misusing products, said William Howard, lawyer for six retailers named in the suits, including Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale, which sold a gun eventually used in the 1998 gang killing of Chicago police Officer Michael Ceriale. "You can't do something wrong and then claim somebody else made me do it," Howard said. The court relied on fairness as a measuring stick in its ruling, listing other products, from liquor to cell phones, that if misused can harm others. Richard Leamy, a lawyer for defendant gun distributors, said the city never claimed that the gun industry wasn't following the law.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 19, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/top/e19gunsuits.htm


Good for them.  Do we go after the auto manufacturer for a vehicular manslaughter case?  No.

It isn't a tool/weapon that kills it is just an extension of a person's will and intent or neglegence.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 19, 2004)

I'm not even pro-gun (a little afraid of them, myself) but I do believe this is the correct desicion. I think people need to be held responsible for their own actions.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Good for them.  Do we go after the auto manufacturer for a vehicular manslaughter case?  No.
> 
> It isn't a tool/weapon that kills it is just an extension of a person's will and intent or neglegence.



Mr. Martin,

There have numerous cases of people going after the automaker. In particular for people who do not survive crashes, while drunk, and not wearing a seatbelt, and still the automakers who are perceieved to have deep pockets even by the courts, end up paying or settling. Does it make it right no it does not. When it comes to law suits people go after those who have the money.


Personally I think this is good news for people having to take responsibility of their actions.

 :asian:


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 19, 2004)

I think the decision was fair myself. In the process of accepting your gun licence, according to the laws of the land, you take a certain "duty of care" / onus of  responsibilty , including foreseeable damage caused by that weapon. We actually had this discussion in a class on weaponry and legal onus recently ourselves. Here in Australia it is perfectly legal to store your gun in a locked glove box or your boot. What they fail to mention is that if you leave your car , regardless of whether you left it loaded ( whoich of course you'd be negligent to do) , if someone was to take that gun and misuse it, as far as the law is concerned, you did _not_ take reasonable measures to ensure prevention of foreseeable damage. I think to remove the firing pin, may have covered you but in the "ideal world", if it's not legally on your person, the gun should be returned to your secure box at home asap, or face the fact you are effecting a potential deadly situation. The manufacturatures position here ( providing it works as they say it does ) is irrelevant.


Cheers

BL


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2004)

If the manufacturers developed a gun that could load itself, levitate out the door and mow down innocent people than yeah, they should be liable...Until then, I think this is one of the most common sense decisions to have come down the pike.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If the manufacturers developed a gun that could load itself, levitate out the door and mow down innocent people than yeah, they should be liable...Until then, I think this is one of the most common sense decisions to have come down the pike.


Very well put Tgace. Actually it is funny this thread was started today because I was having a debate with a young girl who has not been educated as far as firearms. Unfortunatly these "city people" don't hear anything but the bad stuff and nothing about the firearm saftey, and hunting side of things. My argument was basically the same as yours Tgace. Until that day people should know better than try to beat out money from these big firearms companies.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Very well put Tgace. Actually it is funny this thread was started today because I was having a debate with a young girl who has not been educated as far as firearms. Unfortunatly these "city people" don't hear anything but the bad stuff and nothing about the firearm saftey, and hunting side of things. My argument was basically the same as yours Tgace. Until that day people should know better than try to beat out money from these big firearms companies.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ryan




Ryan,

Very good points about safety and people being raised around safe standards. A friend at work told me a nice story, His eldest daughter was asked to go get something from the parents bedroom. She being 7, she had been out with her dad while he shoot and she collected the shells for him in her own case. Well, she did not get what she was told to get, for when she  entered the room she saw that the pistol was not "Safe", no trigger lock. She left the room and closed the door, ** the other kids knew not to go in if the door was closed ** She saw her dad first, and told him the gun was not safe. Training the children to know a trigger lock and to know what was allowed and not allowed.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 19, 2004)

I think it was last year Remington had a problem with some of their model 700's.  The safety was defective and I think a person got killed because of it.  

THAT however, is a totally different story than what we're talking about here.  If a gun is defective and dangerous and results in somebody's death, that isn't the same as when its used in a homicide.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch (Nov 19, 2004)

Different subject, same context as initial post...
We have a guy getting life for selling heroin to a girl who OD'd.
Personally I think thats a bunch of *****. Unless he sat there and held a gun to her head and forced her to shoot up, her death is on her own hands.

hooh. That oughta stir up some trouble.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2004)

Yeah except Heroin sale is illegal.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 19, 2004)

Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch said:
			
		

> Different subject, same context as initial post...
> We have a guy getting life for selling heroin to a girl who OD'd.
> Personally I think thats a bunch of *****. Unless he sat there and held a gun to her head and forced her to shoot up, her death is on her own hands.
> 
> hooh. That oughta stir up some trouble.


And that Mr. Health Bar is the kind of attitude that keeps it on the street for our kids, family and friends to die and / or go to jail from. TG is right and your condoning or rather justifying consequences from its sale and subsequentlly negating responsibility and wrongfulness in it's sale makes me feel physically ill!!!!!
If that girl was your sister would you be so generous to the guy that sold it to her??? 

See, opinion aside, in the law there's a thing called diminished responsibility, vacarious accountablity and foreseeable damage from anything you do or say. If we're only talking law, the dealer's undeniably accountable, like the mother who gives but does not adminster drugs to her kid and gets charged for manslaughter when he accidently dies . That's the way they see it, and I agree 100%. Heroin is a ****** thing and anyone who has a role in keeping it on our streets should be dealt with appropriately.

Blooming Lotus


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 19, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Ryan,
> Training the children to know a trigger lock and to know what was allowed and not allowed.


good stuff!  Now that's what _I'm  _talking about when I say responsible care of a weapon.  and if it was safe boxed , even better again.


----------



## Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch (Nov 20, 2004)

Well before I go too Vulcan on ya, let me point out these things:

1. I was simply using the same logic that was presented in the earlier argument.

2. That IS how I feel. We have an incredible problem with prison overpopulation and we are going to give a guy life for an selling to someone who voluntarily shot it into themself.

3. If it was my sister then I would also be pissed at my parents and my brother in law for allowing my sister to get to the point where she had to self-medicate with something as serious as heroin. 

4. You said this: "like the mother who gives but does not adminster drugs to her kid and gets charged for manslaughter when he accidently dies ."
To which I say: "Skippy you better pray to whatever god you worship that you never find yourself in that position. Cuz I live that one every day." When you have to choose between life and QUALITY of life for a seven year old then you can make blanket judgements on situations.

So do you want to talk law or responsibility, I just got done with a big assed paper on law, so lets do responsibility...
You want to talk responsibility? Lets put it where it belongs. IF people didnt use, there would be no market. But they do. And while heroin is illegal, you can smoke sage (hallucigen and legal) or overdose on dramamine, snort ritalin(though admittedly that is a perscription) but robatussin isnt! There are a lot of ways to do that. Lets look at the whole picture. That girl would have bought heroin from anyone who would have sold it.

IT was supposed to be about the logic baby. the argument. Look at the argument. THAT was SOUND.


----------



## Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch (Nov 20, 2004)

Oh and by the way, before I piss off EVERYONE....

How ya doin Rich? I keep thinking of you. I have something to send your way when you get the chance to look. 

In case you were wondering, Marissa came real close to leaving us a few months ago. She recovered miraculously, but now she is in a bit of a funk... so that has a little to do with the antagonistic tones of my posts...

Bill has me hooked on pursuing Arnis. God. I dont have the attention span to focus on any one thing at this point... how am I expected to raise five kids when I cant even grow up myself?

Ill send you an email soon!

_Craig


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 20, 2004)

Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch said:
			
		

> Well before I go too Vulcan on ya, let me point out these things:
> 
> 3. If it was my sister then I would also be pissed at my parents and my brother in law for allowing my sister to get to the point where she had to self-medicate with something as serious as heroin.
> 
> ...


lol top effort !!  , but if you just did that paper, why the contradiction in your logic??? So now according to your point 3, it _is _reasonable to make someone else responsible for something we do of our own volition ??? 
Wouldn't be plugging double standard by any chance ??? :0 :idunno: 

And on number 4., if you are in charge of the administration of those meds, obviously you'd know the parameters of safe use  so if you went outside those to the babes's detriment, of course of you're going to be accountable. The law can be a ***** , but that doesn't mean you should break it.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 20, 2004)

Quotes by Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch



> 1. I was simply using the same logic that was presented in the earlier argument.


Unfortunatley that is not the same logic. We are talking about firearms, which are legal to sell and use, and are in no way addictive. Where as the sale and use of Heroine is illegal, and that schmuck you are talking about would had been put away whether or not the girl OD'd.



> 2. That IS how I feel. We have an incredible problem with prison overpopulation and we are going to give a guy life for an selling to someone who voluntarily shot it into themself.


That is unfortunate that you feel this way, although you are entitled to this opinion. Yes, we do have overpopulation but the fact of the matter is that he broke the law, and should be punished.



> 3. If it was my sister then I would also be pissed at my parents and my brother in law for allowing my sister to get to the point where she had to self-medicate with something as serious as heroin.


You failed to mention yourself while pointing fingers at people to blame. Number one thing is that Heroine is very addictive and sometimes people get caught in a downward spiral, and can't get out. You use the term self medicate which I also disagree with, there is no way, shape, or form that heroine can be considered a "medication" it is a drug people use to get this amazing feeling called a "HIGH"!!!



> 4. You said this: "like the mother who gives but does not adminster drugs to her kid and gets charged for manslaughter when he accidently dies ."
> To which I say: "Skippy you better pray to whatever god you worship that you never find yourself in that position. Cuz I live that one every day." When you have to choose between life and QUALITY of life for a seven year old then you can make blanket judgements on situations.


It sounds to me that you need to explain your situation. Maybe in your position you have cotrol of a child's life, and you may do a very good job(just speculating here). Although that does not stop the judicial system from putting someone away for neglegence that led to the death of their child!



> So do you want to talk law or responsibility, I just got done with a big assed paper on law, so lets do responsibility...
> You want to talk responsibility? Lets put it where it belongs. IF people didnt use, there would be no market. But they do. And while heroin is illegal, you can smoke sage (hallucigen and legal) or overdose on dramamine, snort ritalin(though admittedly that is a perscription) but robatussin isnt! There are a lot of ways to do that. Lets look at the whole picture. That girl would have bought heroin from anyone who would have sold it.


Ididn't realize that this thread was on the topic of heroin use. Maybe if you want to you could start a thread on this topic. 



> IT was supposed to be about the logic baby. the argument. Look at the argument. THAT was SOUND.


Not really.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Vanilla Heath-Bar Crunch (Nov 20, 2004)

Huh.

Well, I do apologize for the incoherent nature of the post. I had been up for about 72 hours at that point and looking back I dont recall writing some of that stuff, but I guess I did. Ive had a nap now 

The logic however was solid. Perhaps not "sound" as the textbook would define it but it is indeed a case where what I was comparing is not too out of the ballpoark. Its just what you want to see.

Look at it this way, from the standpoint of the sister example, how is that any different than a guy who buys a gun (legally or illegally) and keeps it in the garage, but one of his kids finds it and accidentally shoots himself. Do we blame the guy who sold it? Do we blame the guy who bought it? where does the responsibility lie?
The guy who sells guns know they are a tool designed to end life.
Heroin sellers know that is a chance the user takes as well.
The legal or illegal issue is moot.
IN this the argument I proposed makes sense. Now if I have to go back and dig out my old aforementioned logic textbook Im not going to bother, because I have already taken this topic too far off its original course. However, I do not talk to my sister, and therefore I take no responsibility for her. She is a grownup. Just like the young lady who died from a heroin overdose.

It was supposed to be a tiny antagonistic statement to stir things up. I didnt intend for it to go and give people fits. It isnt about the second amendment. It was about the argument. It was good. If you choose not to agree thats cool. Im gonna drop it after I post this...


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Nov 20, 2004)

we'd only blame the guy who sold it ( as in vicarious liablity) if it was bought illegally.  We'd blame the guy who bought it if he hadn't registered it, or had registered it and failed to comply with the conditions he accepted ( of taking reasonable care in ensuring illegal damage or harm to someone else wasn't caused from use of that gun ) when he accepted his licence.


Illegal sale or procuremnt and distribution of gun , drug or any other item, should be accountable by law.  That's why we have them.


----------

