4 ms·

>"let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasi

>"let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies. Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are liable for the actions of the gun owners. There is no shortage of cases, I searched Walmart (because Walmart scale), but some examples: 1. Walmart Settles Lawsuit for Selling Gun Used in Murder by Neo-Nazi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-lawsuit-for-selling-gun-used-in-murder-by-neo-nazi.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-la...) 2. Wal-Mart sued over sale of bullets used in Pennsylvania murders (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-mart-sued-over-sale-of-bullets-used-in-pennsylvania-murders-idUSKBN0UL2QD20160107 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-...) Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

internet_user 6y ago
Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as: >last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    The liability springs from enabling a straw purchase the plaintiff alleges should have been obvious and therefore the sale should have been denied. I imagine there is evidence (video, witnesses, etc.) that tend to indicate that the dealer knew or should have known he was facilitating a straw purchase.
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works. The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales. Take the case of the Sandy Hook victims that sued Remington. Initially their case was dismissed, because the lower court rules the manufacture is shielded from any liability under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but on appeal the Court overturned the ruling and declared in fact the victims families could sue under State law on separate causes of actions/theories. In that case they were suing Remington for violating the States Fair Trade Practices Act (on the factual basis that Remington marketed military style weapons to civilians). So you could just as easily shrug that of and say "well, liability there sprang from...", of course liability has to spring from somewhere. So in the case of tech, if you wanted to sue the platform, you need an underlying cause of action...whether that may be defamation, or trademark infringement, or copyright infringement. Liability for the tech platforms would have to spring from somewhere just like any other cause of action.
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        I guess I was differentiating plain old negligence from the lawsuits that specifically go after immunity carve-outs in the PLCAA. Interestingly, most of the reporting I was just reading suggests that the Sandy Hook case has been allowed to move forward because makers and sellers lose their immunity if they "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product." This sounded like an overly broad immunity carve-out to me, but if true it seems reasonable that the case is still alive. But of course, the reporting is not complete, it leaves out the second prong of this carve-out "and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought" I can't imagine the Sandy Hook plaintiffs proving or even providing evidence that supports the second prong. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds. Hopefully it will not settle until all the appeals have been exhausted. For Section 230, the immunity carve-outs are much clearer and limited. The tech industry must have better lobbyists than the gun industry. Though if Biden is elected they may have problems: In January 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden proposed revoking Section 230 completely. “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said. “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” Biden never responded to follow-up questions about this statement. https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-inte...
akersten 6y ago
> Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence?" To me, providing a tool to kill and facing no consequence is a lot more influence than Twitter enforcing their terms of service. To be clear, I don't think weapons companies should be responsible for what people do with their products. I certainly don't think tech companies should be responsible for what people do with their products, either.
- hiram112 6y ago
  Let me know when the CEO of Glock or Colt comes and takes back the gun I purchased from them due to a Tweet of mine that the mob disliked.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Well, there are rumblings of various smart guns, where you gun ownership ( and presumably various socially acceptable exceptions like being a felon ) are checked upon attempting to use it. I am not a fan of MGS game, but the author may have seen a small portion of our future.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  >On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence? Not only is that a whataboutism, but its out of touch with reality...there are millions of people who believe there should be liability and giant organizations lobbying for liability gun/ammo manufactures and they have been successful, because we are now seeing liability in the courts. Its law, think how it took decades for big tobacco to be liable when they not only knew of the dangers of their products but they actively and intentionally withheld that information from the public. >I certainly don't think tech companies should be responsible for what people do with their products, either. Do you have a bias? Do you work in tech?
LegitShady 6y ago
lawsuits and settlement are not legal liability, they are just sometimes cheaper and better PR to settle.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  Read the articles: >in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer...The gun was later used by an 18-year-old to shoot and critically wound two police officers, who were awarded damages by the jury. Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to. FYI: Walmart doesn't settle for cost or PR, they settle because of liability.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    The liability in these cases was related to alleged negligence related to facilitating straw purchases. And, in the PA case, possibly selling bullets to an underage buyer.
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      As mentioned before that's how law works. Before the erosion of the federal law protecting manufacturers and sellers of firearms, cases with the very same set of fact would have been dismissed, because there was a law shielding them from liability. The parties have to be liable for something...and the same would be true with tech companies if their current federal protections were removed, they would have to be liable for some valid legal claims such as negligence, defamation, copyright infringement, trademark infringement. The point is removing the federal shield the multi-billion dollar companies lobbied for to protect themselves from lawsuits, so when their is an otherwise lawful claim for which they are liable they can be sued. Honestly, how did you think it works?
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    >Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun A jury verdict in a different case with different particulars doesn't immediately imply that walmart is guilty. The particulars of both cases matter. Being sued and settling does NOT imply legal liability, and someone else winning a different case is also not legal liability for walmart. >Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to. Case particulars matter. >FYI: Walmart doesn't settle for cost or PR, they settle because of liability. This is just not true. Walmart does things for PR all the time, including settle lawsuits they know will make them look bad.

internet_user 6y ago

Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.

throwaway_USD 6y ago
If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as: >last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  The liability springs from enabling a straw purchase the plaintiff alleges should have been obvious and therefore the sale should have been denied. I imagine there is evidence (video, witnesses, etc.) that tend to indicate that the dealer knew or should have known he was facilitating a straw purchase.
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works. The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales. Take the case of the Sandy Hook victims that sued Remington. Initially their case was dismissed, because the lower court rules the manufacture is shielded from any liability under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but on appeal the Court overturned the ruling and declared in fact the victims families could sue under State law on separate causes of actions/theories. In that case they were suing Remington for violating the States Fair Trade Practices Act (on the factual basis that Remington marketed military style weapons to civilians). So you could just as easily shrug that of and say "well, liability there sprang from...", of course liability has to spring from somewhere. So in the case of tech, if you wanted to sue the platform, you need an underlying cause of action...whether that may be defamation, or trademark infringement, or copyright infringement. Liability for the tech platforms would have to spring from somewhere just like any other cause of action.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      I guess I was differentiating plain old negligence from the lawsuits that specifically go after immunity carve-outs in the PLCAA. Interestingly, most of the reporting I was just reading suggests that the Sandy Hook case has been allowed to move forward because makers and sellers lose their immunity if they "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product." This sounded like an overly broad immunity carve-out to me, but if true it seems reasonable that the case is still alive. But of course, the reporting is not complete, it leaves out the second prong of this carve-out "and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought" I can't imagine the Sandy Hook plaintiffs proving or even providing evidence that supports the second prong. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds. Hopefully it will not settle until all the appeals have been exhausted. For Section 230, the immunity carve-outs are much clearer and limited. The tech industry must have better lobbyists than the gun industry. Though if Biden is elected they may have problems: In January 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden proposed revoking Section 230 completely. “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said. “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” Biden never responded to follow-up questions about this statement. https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-inte...

akersten 6y ago

> Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence?" To me, providing a tool to kill and facing no consequence is a lot more influence than Twitter enforcing their terms of service. To be clear, I don't think weapons companies should be responsible for what people do with their products. I certainly don't think tech companies should be responsible for what people do with their products, either.

hiram112 6y ago
Let me know when the CEO of Glock or Colt comes and takes back the gun I purchased from them due to a Tweet of mine that the mob disliked.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Well, there are rumblings of various smart guns, where you gun ownership ( and presumably various socially acceptable exceptions like being a felon ) are checked upon attempting to use it. I am not a fan of MGS game, but the author may have seen a small portion of our future.
throwaway_USD 6y ago
>On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence? Not only is that a whataboutism, but its out of touch with reality...there are millions of people who believe there should be liability and giant organizations lobbying for liability gun/ammo manufactures and they have been successful, because we are now seeing liability in the courts. Its law, think how it took decades for big tobacco to be liable when they not only knew of the dangers of their products but they actively and intentionally withheld that information from the public. >I certainly don't think tech companies should be responsible for what people do with their products, either. Do you have a bias? Do you work in tech?

LegitShady 6y ago

lawsuits and settlement are not legal liability, they are just sometimes cheaper and better PR to settle.

throwaway_USD 6y ago
Read the articles: >in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer...The gun was later used by an 18-year-old to shoot and critically wound two police officers, who were awarded damages by the jury. Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to. FYI: Walmart doesn't settle for cost or PR, they settle because of liability.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  The liability in these cases was related to alleged negligence related to facilitating straw purchases. And, in the PA case, possibly selling bullets to an underage buyer.
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    As mentioned before that's how law works. Before the erosion of the federal law protecting manufacturers and sellers of firearms, cases with the very same set of fact would have been dismissed, because there was a law shielding them from liability. The parties have to be liable for something...and the same would be true with tech companies if their current federal protections were removed, they would have to be liable for some valid legal claims such as negligence, defamation, copyright infringement, trademark infringement. The point is removing the federal shield the multi-billion dollar companies lobbied for to protect themselves from lawsuits, so when their is an otherwise lawful claim for which they are liable they can be sued. Honestly, how did you think it works?
- LegitShady 6y ago
  >Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun A jury verdict in a different case with different particulars doesn't immediately imply that walmart is guilty. The particulars of both cases matter. Being sued and settling does NOT imply legal liability, and someone else winning a different case is also not legal liability for walmart. >Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to. Case particulars matter. >FYI: Walmart doesn't settle for cost or PR, they settle because of liability. This is just not true. Walmart does things for PR all the time, including settle lawsuits they know will make them look bad.