4 ms·

Marketing materials for the standalone flamethrower product from the same company, https://throwflame.com/arc/ https://throwflame.com/arc/ , includes a photo ca

by neilv 3y ago

Marketing materials for the standalone flamethrower product from the same company, https://throwflame.com/arc/ https://throwflame.com/arc/ , includes a photo carousel of mounting it on various military rifles in civilian contexts. Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. I suspect that product teams found to be reckless in other categories don't have the same protections. (Is a lawyer going to try to argue that the US Founding Fathers envisioned a well-regulated militia of robot dogs with flamethrowers on their backs?)

arcticbull 3y ago
> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. Well you can thank the gun manufacturer liability shield laws for that. Like the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005.
- 15155 3y ago
  The alternative is special interest groups suing arms manufacturers out of existence as a backdoor means to deprive people of their Second Amendment rights. One can still sue an arms manufacturer if a faulty product explodes in their face.. they just can't cry foul about what other people do with these lawful products.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >they just can't cry foul about what other people do with these lawful products. I think it's a bit more nuanced. This statement is mainly related to manufacturing defects, but there are other avenues to liability more related to "reasonableness". It's also important to note this has changed over time, from former negligence liabilities to the current form of strict liability. (Point being: how society defines liability changes)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
15155 3y ago
> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. Intentional liability shields have been legally enshrined for arms manufacturers (and for good reason.) > well-regulated militia Can you please never repeat this line of reasoning again? This is well-settled jurisprudence, the most anti-2A SCOTUS Justices over the last 30 years unanimously agree individual arms ownership is a right (Caetano v Massachusetts), this fact is not in dispute: "well-regulated" means "in good working order," not "restricted." Constitutionally-enshrined rights don't change because the English language happens to evolve in 200 years.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  For many originalists "well-regulated" can mean "uniformed", as in the British "regulars" or regular army as opposed to local militia who were not provided uniforms. Remember that until very recently a soldier's given coat was normally worth more than his weapon. So much context has been lost to history. Edit: I just did some googling. A decent British army redcoat costume still costs more today than a brand new AR-15.
  - flandish 3y ago
    In my opinion the word “regulated” is used in the same spooky way “unlimited” is with cell service plans. “Unlimited” (until you hit a limit then we limit your bandwidth)
    - 15155 3y ago
      The Court was clear in Heller that "no right is unlimited," but that still does not mean that reinterpreting this specific, independent 200-year-old clause is what would legally enable regulation of the right to bear arms. The "well-regulated militia" argument was quickly defused by the Court because these people are actual legal scholars with extensive, relevant English and history educations.
      - flandish 3y ago
ranger_danger 3y ago
> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion Because they (along with the NRA and others) donate to the politicians, that's the only reason gun control is never legitimately on the table.
- 15155 3y ago
  Could this possibly be because these regulations might be generally unpopular amongst the majority of States and/or run afoul of Constitutional protections absent an amendment?
  - bumby 3y ago
    That may be an ungenerous reading. It depends on how you define "majority". There are certainly some aspects that appear to be democratically in the majority and constitutional, yet they still don't get passed. I think what the OP was referring to was the case where lobbying impacts the alignment between representatives and their constituents.
lm28469 3y ago
> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. If they were what about cars, knives, forks, pointy objects, plastic bags, bricks, hammers, machetes, &c.
- bumby 3y ago
  It often comes down to what is considered "unreasonably dangerous"
  - lm28469 3y ago
    Lots of EVs are unreasonably heavy and quick, as well as unreasonably advertised as self driving
    - bumby 3y ago
      The first is probably more debatable, but I agree with the second. And liability for self-driving is a contentious matter that I would not say is legally settled.

by neilv 3y ago

arcticbull 3y ago

> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. Well you can thank the gun manufacturer liability shield laws for that. Like the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005.

15155 3y ago
The alternative is special interest groups suing arms manufacturers out of existence as a backdoor means to deprive people of their Second Amendment rights. One can still sue an arms manufacturer if a faulty product explodes in their face.. they just can't cry foul about what other people do with these lawful products.
- bumby 3y ago
  >they just can't cry foul about what other people do with these lawful products. I think it's a bit more nuanced. This statement is mainly related to manufacturing defects, but there are other avenues to liability more related to "reasonableness". It's also important to note this has changed over time, from former negligence liabilities to the current form of strict liability. (Point being: how society defines liability changes)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

15155 3y ago

> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. Intentional liability shields have been legally enshrined for arms manufacturers (and for good reason.) > well-regulated militia Can you please never repeat this line of reasoning again? This is well-settled jurisprudence, the most anti-2A SCOTUS Justices over the last 30 years unanimously agree individual arms ownership is a right (Caetano v Massachusetts), this fact is not in dispute: "well-regulated" means "in good working order," not "restricted." Constitutionally-enshrined rights don't change because the English language happens to evolve in 200 years.

sandworm101 3y ago
For many originalists "well-regulated" can mean "uniformed", as in the British "regulars" or regular army as opposed to local militia who were not provided uniforms. Remember that until very recently a soldier's given coat was normally worth more than his weapon. So much context has been lost to history. Edit: I just did some googling. A decent British army redcoat costume still costs more today than a brand new AR-15.
- flandish 3y ago
  In my opinion the word “regulated” is used in the same spooky way “unlimited” is with cell service plans. “Unlimited” (until you hit a limit then we limit your bandwidth)
  - 15155 3y ago
    The Court was clear in Heller that "no right is unlimited," but that still does not mean that reinterpreting this specific, independent 200-year-old clause is what would legally enable regulation of the right to bear arms. The "well-regulated militia" argument was quickly defused by the Court because these people are actual legal scholars with extensive, relevant English and history educations.
    - flandish 3y ago

ranger_danger 3y ago

> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion Because they (along with the NRA and others) donate to the politicians, that's the only reason gun control is never legitimately on the table.

15155 3y ago
Could this possibly be because these regulations might be generally unpopular amongst the majority of States and/or run afoul of Constitutional protections absent an amendment?
- bumby 3y ago
  That may be an ungenerous reading. It depends on how you define "majority". There are certainly some aspects that appear to be democratically in the majority and constitutional, yet they still don't get passed. I think what the OP was referring to was the case where lobbying impacts the alignment between representatives and their constituents.

lm28469 3y ago

> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used. If they were what about cars, knives, forks, pointy objects, plastic bags, bricks, hammers, machetes, &c.

bumby 3y ago
It often comes down to what is considered "unreasonably dangerous"
- lm28469 3y ago
  Lots of EVs are unreasonably heavy and quick, as well as unreasonably advertised as self driving
  - bumby 3y ago
    The first is probably more debatable, but I agree with the second. And liability for self-driving is a contentious matter that I would not say is legally settled.