Subject:
|
Re: Just 'cause...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:47:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
139 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3139246.stm
|
I see a case against the gun shop and the ATF itself, the gun manufacturer is
beyond the scope of what is wanted here. The gun shop is apparently not
keeping very good records and the ATF is tasked with regulating the shop’s
negligence, neither is doing their respective jobs! I’m not clear on how or
why Bushmaster should stop selling to a gun dealer when the ATF fails to shut
down the dealer for not keeping good records.
A fairly good analogy would be a linen cleaning service still servicing an
Italian restaurant even though the Italian restaurant is in violation of
several health codes and the health inspector has failed to shut them down.
If someone eats there and gets sick, how is the linen cleaning service
responsible for the shortcomings of the restaurant itself? I can see
trying to sue the linen cleaning service, maybe they are the “deep pockets”
in the case; but I can also see them easily getting out from under any
possible claim of liability.
I don’t see anything else here.
-- Hop-Frog
|
Now that’s a good point.
That said, in the example it wasn’t the linen company that contributed to the
violation of the health codes of the restaurants--no one eats the table cloths.
However, it is the guns from the manufacturer that directly lead to the
unwarranted deaths of individuals.
I would consider the idea that if a gun manufacturer knowingly ships guns to a
retailer known to be in violation of regulations, then the gun manufacturer may
or should be equally culpable.
It’s akin to stores having the legal obligation to make sure that cigarettes are
only sold to those over 19, but the manufacturers shipping ciggys to stores
without similar enforcements. Most store owners are more than likely older than
19, so this is a purely hypothetical point.
I’d make that concession. If people have to undergo ‘regulated’ measures to buy
guns, then the store should have to undergo similar processes to have the
inventory shipped to them in the first place.
Another point is what about the legislation in the works granting ‘exemptions’
to a specific manufacturer that no other manufacturers have? I’m a very big
proponent of eliminating frivilous lawsuits, but is this legislation going to
void valid suits as well?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Just 'cause...
|
| (...) I'd say the ATF has to police this stuff and not that manufacturer, the reverse seems crazy backwards. If you are going to place the burden of regulation on the manufacturer, then what do we need the ATF for? I would say that citing the gun (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Just 'cause...
|
| (...) beyond the scope of what is wanted here. The gun shop is apparently not keeping very good records and the ATF is tasked with regulating the shop's negligence, neither is doing their respective jobs! I'm not clear on how or why Bushmaster (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
