HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms
were treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

It is obvious you didn't read the law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

--- Begin quote:

SECTION 2 - FINDINGS

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and
intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm
caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including
criminals.
(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for
harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system,
erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the
diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites
the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic
sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the
United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate
and foreign commerce of the United States.
(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and
others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years
of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not
represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible
sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit
jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by
the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures
of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would
constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and
others
attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative
branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce
through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the
Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important
principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the
sister States.
--- End quote

That's why.


crickets