Jump to content

Bill Would Allow Illinoisans to Sue Gunmakers & Dealers


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/bill-would-allow-illinoisans-to-sue-gunmakers-dealers-over-gun-violence-illinois-gun-manufacturer-protecting-heartbeats-act-state-rifle-association-isra

 

Bill would allow Illinoisans to sue gunmakers, dealers over gun violence


by Jakob Emerson WICS

Friday, October 1st 2021

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WICS) - A new bill (HB4156) filed in the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday would allow any Illinoisan to sue gun manufacturers, importers, or dealers whose guns cause injury or death within the state.

...

 

"I’m exploiting essentially the argument that was made in Texas and the Supreme Court's argument and applying it to a bill that I think will do a lot of good,” Rep. Margaret Croke, D-Chicago, said.

 

Filed by Rep. Croke, the legislation would mandate that damages resulting from the lawsuits would start at $10,000.

...

ISRA has not taken an official stance on the legislation, yet.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can imagine a dealer being liable for would be selling to a prohibited person or to a straw purchaser, which they'd be in deep doo-doo for, anyway.  Just another scheme to try and run all the FFL's out of Illinois.  And importers???  WTH is their theory on that one???

 

The ISRA had better step up and file suit ASAP, and slap an injunction on these morons.  This will easily pass the new woke Illinois legislature; ever think you'd miss Madigan?

 

****

 

A new bill (HB4156) filed in the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday would allow any Illinoisan to sue gun manufacturers, importers, or dealers whose guns cause injury or death within the state.

 

As usual, they claim that guns commit crimes, while continuing to coddle and pass the buck for their protected class of violent criminals.  Last I checked, guns aren't allowed in prison, so how else can you punish them for their dastardly deeds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Texas law that allows private suits against abortion providers is the model they are emulating. It's evidently a novel legal strategy that is hard to enjoin in advance. Hence the Supreme Court not stepping in so far.

 

If that legal tactic is eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, we can expect it to be deployed against honest citizens and businesses in many anti 2A jurisdictions.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 6:29 AM, mauserme said:

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/bill-would-allow-illinoisans-to-sue-gunmakers-dealers-over-gun-violence-illinois-gun-manufacturer-protecting-heartbeats-act-state-rifle-association-isra

 

Bill would allow Illinoisans to sue gunmakers, dealers over gun violence


 

......."I’m exploiting essentially the argument that was made in Texas and the Supreme Court's argument and applying it to a bill that I think will do a lot of good,” Rep. Margaret Croke, D-Chicago, said.....

...

 

Which is why they (childishly) named the bill after the TX law? This bill is a pro-abortion hissy fit disguised as gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is different. Under this principle, your anti gun neighbor could sue gun manufacturers without ever having a direct loss like the Sandy Hook families did.

 

Visualize a law that lets your neighbor sue you and/or your homebuilder for having a cedar shake roof that he says is more prone to fire, and therefore puts his house and his family at increased risk. Sounds crazy, but the Texas legislature has kicked open this door, thinking they were clever in restricting abortion, but they risking it being used in other ways if it is held to be constitutional.

 

The idea of giving a third party standing to sue in this way evidently presents some novel legal questions that eventually will be sorted out -- first on the abortion issue, and perhaps in parallel with anti gun laws patterned in the same fashion. Sadly for us, Illinois is a fertile ground for this new anti gun strategy, and it's going to be a while before this gets sorted out.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 11:17 AM, richp said:

This is different. Under this principle, your anti gun neighbor could sue gun manufacturers without ever having a direct loss like the Sandy Hook families did.

 

...

 

Like this 2000 New York lawsuit against the "gun industry" for being a public nuisance.  Their grievance was that manufactures failed to design safer products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 11:43 AM, mauserme said:

 

Like this 2000 New York lawsuit against the "gun industry" for being a public nuisance.  Their grievance was that manufactures failed to design safer products.

Safer would not let a car go over 100 MPH especially since there no place legally you can even drive it that fast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was already discussion of this bill in 102nd General Assembly Bills.

 

It is called "Protecting Heartbeats," because it is specifically patterned after the TX law. It gives standing to people who would otherwise have no standing. In the US legal system, anyone can file a suit against anyone else for any reason. Ordinarily, the complainant has to be able to demonstrate that it has been harmed by the defendant in order to pursue a lawsuit. Without standing, the suit would be dismissed. Those other suits mentioned above were ultimately dismissed for lack of standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, it's illegal for gun manufacturers to be held liable if their products are used in a crime. It’s a law President Joe Biden has expressed his support for repealing.

Croke says the federal law doesn't apply to straw dealers, and it’s why the word “dealers” is broadly defined in the legislation as ”any person or entity that transfers a firearm to another person or entity.”

"I consider a straw dealer someone who goes out and buys a gun legally from a gun shop, has that gun, then transfers it illegally," Croke said.

 

This woman is a complete idiot.  So, what she means by "dealers" or "straw dealers" are straw purchasers?  She doesn't even understand the terminology.  The other part of this, as others have said, is that in order to have standing to sue, you must have been damaged/have damages as a result of the defendant's conduct.  The courts do not want to be flooded with, "Hey, I need a quick ten grand ... lemme see who I can sue to transfer some of that wealth over my way" lawsuits by disinterested people just looking to pick up a buck at someone else's expense.  If word of that got out, there would be thousands upon thousands of suits filed in Crook County every year by people looking to supplement their public aid, Medicaid, Link card and Section 8 benefits so that they don't have to work like the rest of us.  And if the Texas legislature did that with respect to abortion, shame on them, too!  I don't believe in abortion, but who the heck am I to sue an abortion doctor for money that has nothing to do with me?

 

I'm glad I looked at the darned article.  This would be a disaster.  They're trying to open the door to nuisance-suiting the gun industry out of business.  Once you allow that, no one is safe.  Cars kill people, I think I'll sue GM to fund that inground pool I've been wanting.  Hey, people have died from side effects of medication ... I can get that new car I need if I sue Pfizer for screwing up people I don't even know!  

 

And pay extra careful attention to THIS part:  Croke says the federal law doesn't apply to straw dealers, and it’s why the word “dealers” is broadly defined in the legislation as ”any person or entity that transfers a firearm to another person or entity.”  That means you, me, or anyone else who has ever privately sold a gun to someone; who has ever given a gun to a family member; heck, even grandpa, who left you his old revolver in his will.  Can some clown in Chicago sue his estate for being a "straw dealer?"  There is nothing worse that an idiot with an agenda and the power to act upon it.  Keep voting Democrat, geniuses!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might as well re-post here, but this is some of what I said in the other thread.

  

On 9/29/2021 at 6:11 PM, Euler said:

... Specifically, people who were NOT harmed can sue the gun shop.

 

To avoid confusion, when I said "sue," I meant "sue successfully."

 

On 9/30/2021 at 3:26 PM, Euler said:

...

Both laws are stupid. Escalating the stupidity is not the solution to stupidity. Whoever wrote the TX law identified a problem in the US legal system. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they decided to use it to start a fire to burn the country down.

 

Substitute any other legal, even protected, activity, and there can be a law that allows suing the requisite providers. (Remember, you don't pass laws. Legislators do, everywhere.)

Someone doesn't like your practice of religion? They can sue your church.

Someone doesn't like your speech? They can sue your soapbox, megaphone, copy machine, pen/paper, composition software, etc., vendors or radio/TV stations that report it.

Someone doesn't like that you use a maid service to clean your house? They can sue the maid service.

Someone doesn't like that you even own a house? They can sue the title transfer provider.

 

In a developed civilization, even a socialist one, virtually every activity anyone does involves purchasing a good or service from someone at some point. No one but hermits make everything they have from raw materials they collect themselves or performs labor for only their own benefit. A society in which individuals have no economic interaction with each other and interact only with the state is no society at all. Economy is not the same as culture, but every culture has an economy.

...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 4:13 PM, 2A4Cook said:

...

 

I'm glad I looked at the darned article.  This would be a disaster.  They're trying to open the door to nuisance-suiting the gun industry out of business.  ...

 

 

That's exactly what Bloomberg was trying to do with the New York suit.  Likewise all the cities that joined that action.  And Plaintiff Michael Pfleger with his more recent suit against Indiana gun stores.  The list is long.

 

The fact that they're angered by conservatives adopting their methods is new.  The tactics are not new. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 9:53 AM, Quiet Observer said:

This has nothing to do with the Texas law. Sandy Hook parents sued Bushmaster in 2014 or so. 

 

It is the next attempt to "eliminate guns" modeled on the Texas law to "eliminate abortion". A blatant attempt to skirt the law.  "If it works in Texas..."

 

It will not stand in Texas and it will not stand in Illinois.

 

Quote

Creates the Firearms Dealer and Importer Liability Act. Provides that the Act may be referred to as the Protecting Heartbeats Act. Provides that any manufacturer, importer, or dealer of a firearm shall be held strictly liable for any bodily injury or death if the bodily injury or death proximately results from the unlawful discharge of the firearm in the State. Allows any person, other than an officer or employee of a State or local governmental entity, to bring a civil action against any person or entity who violates the Act. Requires the court to award a prevailing claimant: (1) injunctive relief; (2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each individual injured or killed by a firearm that the defendant manufactured, imported, or dealt; and (3) costs and attorney's fees. Provides for various limitations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...