4 ms·

An important point to recognize is that gun manufacturers have almost no product liability exposure due to laws pushed by the NRA. Of course the NRA pitched th

An important point to recognize is that gun manufacturers have almost no product liability exposure due to laws pushed by the NRA. Of course the NRA pitched these laws to their members as protecting against gun violence victims suing the manufacturer, but they also slipped in that gun manufacturers have no legal responsibility to provide guns to buyers that do not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

dayjah 1y ago
When the plaintiff is the US Armed Forces, does this still hold? Surely the contract with an arm of the military doesn't have the same protections?
- giancarlostoro 1y ago
  They can freeze funds and cancel future contracts, which should be enough pressure. What's wild to me is the military version was not even remotely safer. 100% the families of those affected by Sigs goof ups should sue.
wl 1y ago
You're probably referencing a New Hampshire law that prevents product liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers for not including manual safeties. That law would not prevent product liability lawsuits in cases where guns discharge without the trigger being actuated.
eoskx 1y ago
Keep in mind, too, that the US Army does NOT want this FMECA document released. From the article that is cited the US Army's project manager & legal counsel gave this response to help Sig justify keeping the document sealed: > The Army position would be to oppose the distribution to the public of the > FMECA document as it potentially reveals critical information about the > handgun (design, reliability, performance, etc.).
Zak 1y ago
If you're referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[0] passed in 2005, that's not true. It only bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers for criminal misuse of their products, not for hazardous defects. Remington settled a class action lawsuit[1] concerning rifles that could fire without a trigger pull filed after the passage of that law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/remington-rifle-settlement-is-official.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/remington-rifle-settlement-i...
_ea1k 1y ago
What law does this? All that I can find are laws limiting liability for use of a properly functioning weapon, not against defects.
uticus 1y ago
> they also slipped in that gun manufacturers have no legal responsibility to provide guns to buyers that do not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Where does this idea come from? If this is the case, the document being discussed in the OP would not even exist, because there would be no need to document situations causing unintentional discharge.
- jack_h 1y ago
  > Where does this idea come from? It seems to be acquired through social osmosis, i.e. hearing people talk about it and then repeating their assertions as if it were a fact - usually with subtle changes colored by the speakers own world view - until some version of "truth" permeates society. I guess you could consider it like a game of telephone at a societal level. The Citizens United case is another great example where what people think it held is very different from what it actually held. It's also frustrating given the fact that we live in a time where the barrier to verify these claims is incredibly low or even non-existent because of the internet.
  - pc86 1y ago
    Slightly more cynical take - it comes from gun-control advocates who want to repeal all of the firearms provisions in the PLCA lying about what it does to generate more public support for its repeal. People who just dislike guns (or dislike the people who like guns) then repeat it forever, even after proven wrong.
    - kergonath 1y ago
      I am sure that those people exist, by how many are they and what kind of power do they have? To me it seems that they are convenient boogeymen every time someone suggests a sensible reform that would make gun circulation less of a problem (like restrictions for criminals and mentally unstable people or background checks). I don’t doubt your sincerity, but this is just too simple a point of view for such a complex and nuanced situation.
      - 1y ago
phatskat 1y ago
The NRA has been insidious since its coup back in the day and then its subsequent commandeering by the right wing as a propaganda tool: at one point, there was a popular pistol type (I don’t recall the make/model) that was really good at accidentally discharging and the NRA helped not only to shield the manufacturer from liability, but also to keep the guns in circulation because there was a specific group of people (cough black cough) who disproportionately favored this gun due to iirc low price point. It was pretty obviously a case of “well hey, if these guns are accidentally firing and killing _black folk_ then it’s not really an issue”
agensaequivocum 1y ago
This is not true.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
As others have said, this is simply false. The shield is against liability for misuse--or do you think people should be able to sue Ford for making a car a drunk can drive? Furthermore, look at what caused it: the gun grabbers were planning to bury the gun makers in a flood of lawsuits that would overwhelm them regardless of whether they were actually wrong.

dayjah 1y ago

When the plaintiff is the US Armed Forces, does this still hold? Surely the contract with an arm of the military doesn't have the same protections?

giancarlostoro 1y ago
They can freeze funds and cancel future contracts, which should be enough pressure. What's wild to me is the military version was not even remotely safer. 100% the families of those affected by Sigs goof ups should sue.

wl 1y ago

You're probably referencing a New Hampshire law that prevents product liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers for not including manual safeties. That law would not prevent product liability lawsuits in cases where guns discharge without the trigger being actuated.

eoskx 1y ago

Keep in mind, too, that the US Army does NOT want this FMECA document released. From the article that is cited the US Army's project manager & legal counsel gave this response to help Sig justify keeping the document sealed: > The Army position would be to oppose the distribution to the public of the > FMECA document as it potentially reveals critical information about the > handgun (design, reliability, performance, etc.).

Zak 1y ago

If you're referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[0] passed in 2005, that's not true. It only bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers for criminal misuse of their products, not for hazardous defects. Remington settled a class action lawsuit[1] concerning rifles that could fire without a trigger pull filed after the passage of that law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/remington-rifle-settlement-is-official.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/remington-rifle-settlement-i...

_ea1k 1y ago

What law does this? All that I can find are laws limiting liability for use of a properly functioning weapon, not against defects.

uticus 1y ago

> they also slipped in that gun manufacturers have no legal responsibility to provide guns to buyers that do not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Where does this idea come from? If this is the case, the document being discussed in the OP would not even exist, because there would be no need to document situations causing unintentional discharge.

jack_h 1y ago
> Where does this idea come from? It seems to be acquired through social osmosis, i.e. hearing people talk about it and then repeating their assertions as if it were a fact - usually with subtle changes colored by the speakers own world view - until some version of "truth" permeates society. I guess you could consider it like a game of telephone at a societal level. The Citizens United case is another great example where what people think it held is very different from what it actually held. It's also frustrating given the fact that we live in a time where the barrier to verify these claims is incredibly low or even non-existent because of the internet.
- pc86 1y ago
  Slightly more cynical take - it comes from gun-control advocates who want to repeal all of the firearms provisions in the PLCA lying about what it does to generate more public support for its repeal. People who just dislike guns (or dislike the people who like guns) then repeat it forever, even after proven wrong.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    I am sure that those people exist, by how many are they and what kind of power do they have? To me it seems that they are convenient boogeymen every time someone suggests a sensible reform that would make gun circulation less of a problem (like restrictions for criminals and mentally unstable people or background checks). I don’t doubt your sincerity, but this is just too simple a point of view for such a complex and nuanced situation.
    - 1y ago

phatskat 1y ago

The NRA has been insidious since its coup back in the day and then its subsequent commandeering by the right wing as a propaganda tool: at one point, there was a popular pistol type (I don’t recall the make/model) that was really good at accidentally discharging and the NRA helped not only to shield the manufacturer from liability, but also to keep the guns in circulation because there was a specific group of people (cough black cough) who disproportionately favored this gun due to iirc low price point. It was pretty obviously a case of “well hey, if these guns are accidentally firing and killing _black folk_ then it’s not really an issue”

agensaequivocum 1y ago

This is not true.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

As others have said, this is simply false. The shield is against liability for misuse--or do you think people should be able to sue Ford for making a car a drunk can drive? Furthermore, look at what caused it: the gun grabbers were planning to bury the gun makers in a flood of lawsuits that would overwhelm them regardless of whether they were actually wrong.