|
The "utomatically immune" phrase came into play when the courts recognized that a profusion of suits were being brought against firearms manufacturers, and these torts were consistently being shot. Very consistently. The court exercised it's ability to shoot down frivolous lawsuits, in essence showing its' awareness that these neverending lawsuits were simply the products of those groups whose aim it is to see the firearms manufacturing industry crippled and destroyed.
Basically, if a gun maker is sued, even if the case is utter tripe and a guanrateed loser, the manufacturer is still forced to pay horrendous court fees. Countersuits to recover said court fees are a gamble, both because they produce even more fees and because the plaintiffs in these suits are generally penniless comparatively, and recovering any fees that they have a slim chance of winning would be impossible.
The response of various legislators providing immunity to gunmakers is a direct, if heavy-handed response to the frivolous lawsuits being aimed at gunmakers. Tort Reform would make far more sense. Make the plaintiff pay the defendants legal fees if the plaintiff's case is found to be without merit. That would stop a lot of these garbage torts going on now. Of course Tort Reform will never happen as lawyers make up the vast percentage of legislative bodies and they ade their fortunes off tort, and the companies they'll work for once they leave office make their fortunes off torts.
As to the "lethal product" argument, guns are strictly inanimate objects. They are, without fail, built to extremely high safety standards. The accidental discharges of 60 years ago are almost unheard of today. As such, the only discharges that matter, are the intentional ones, or the ones caused by negligence on the part of the operator. ANY product can be misused. Using a gun to commit a crime is misusing the gun, as much as using spray paint to get high by huffing is a misuse of spray paint. Is the spray paint manufacturer liable when their product is misused? Is a car maker liable when a drunk driver kills someone?
Finally, in reference to the oversupply line of reasoning, I ask how you would control that? Would you issue each person a bag limit on firearms purchases? As a manufacturer, it is your responsibility to produce as many units as you can sell, period. Your shareholders demand that. I realize that you have a solidly predictable example in your cigarette argument, but cigarettes are consumables, and, to those addicted, a necessity. Necessities behave diferently than luxury purchase items like gun. Ask any gun dealer if they can predict how many guns they'll sell in a month down to 3% margin of error. Unless they're a very large dealer, it won't happen.
|