TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
ar-15_assaultrifile_gun_ap980.jpg
What this means is that a rogue gun dealer could sell an AR-15 to someone who is hallucinating and speaking in tongues and no matter what happens, the dealer is immune to a lawsuit. (AP Photo/File)

Are Democrats being unfair to AR-15s?

BY Dave Ross  on February 7, 2013 @ 12:24 pm (Updated: 12:03 pm - 2/8/13 )

Democrats in the Colorado legislature want to make gun dealers and manufacturers of what we've come to call assault rifles, liable for deaths and injuries caused by guns like the AR-15.

Which sounds like they'd be deliberately targeting a legal product for special punishment. But here's the shocking thing -- CBS Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen says historically, gun dealers and manufacturers used to get sued all the time, until 2005. That's when Congress awarded the arms industry special immunity.

"The Congress passed a federal law that gives gun dealers and gun manufacturers special protection from the source of negligence case that other corporations in other industries get."

What this means is that a rogue gun dealer could sell an AR-15 to someone who is hallucinating and speaking in tongues and no matter what happens, the dealer is immune to a lawsuit.

"Before the federal law came into effect, those sorts of questions would be decided on a case by case basis. Some judges would say, 'You know what, we're going to allow this case to go to trial.' Some judges would say 'no we're not going to allow it.' What the federal law did was say none of these cases can ever go to trial no matter how egregious the negligence may be," said Cohen.

I ask him if there is anything in the second amendment that says that must be the case?

According to Cohen: No.

Which means if the Colorado bill passes -- expect to see it in the Supreme Court.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (8)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hate to say it, Dave. But you and the State of Colorado have got me on this one.
    February 9, 2013 7:50 am
    Certainly, anyone has the right to sue anyone else for anything. Heck, the color you dye your hair, if they want to. ..... Of course, if people sue Ford every time a drunk driving a Ford kills someone, over time it will be pretty apparent that it's not the CAR that was the problem.

    And there is also that thing where judged can through out frivolous law suits - and assign court & defendant costs to the plaintiff. ...... And allow counter suits, if a case DOES go to trial, and Ford wins. .....And, trust me, Ford (and most gun manufacturers) have a lot more money than YOU.

    Of course, sue for a small enough amount, and Ford MIGHT pay you off, but all that does is benefit the insurance industry. Not exactly the aim of this Colorado proposal.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Mr.ron, if a Ford dealer handed the keys to a drunk
    February 10, 2013 10:51 am
    and they mowed down someone in the dealer parking lot.

    They certainly would be grounds for a suit. Against the dealer anyway.

    If the manufacturer produced equipment that failed and in turn caused death and destruction, again, there would be grounds for a suit. Remember the Ford Explorer/Firestone suits?

    Is this why some of the gun dealers aren't as careful as they should be about background checks?

    Remember the store in Tacoma who sold the DC shooters the Bushmaster?

    Apparently a lot of firearms were going out the back door there, I believe the ATF finally shut the guy down. Pulled his FFL.

    I vaguely remember when this happened. I thought it strange at the time.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I take it back
    February 10, 2013 10:56 am
    They are still open, Bull's Eye Shooters Supply.

    Amazing

    And I guess you can't sue the gun manufactures for any mayhem the shooters cause because, after all, the gun itself is performing as it is designed.

    Now if it didn't kill, would that be grounds?

    Just kidding.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    But, Mr. Lawn, I wasn't talking about a Ford DEALER.
    February 10, 2013 11:05 am
    Nor was I talking about defective equipment. Point being, you would have a hard time suing anyone for the misuse of a legal, properly functioning product.

    What YOU are alluding to is more the laws we have against over-pouring. ... Bur, even at that, I don't know of all that many bartenders prosecuted after a patron drives home drunk. - Just too much trouble for the police and few lawyers (apparently) find much to be gained by suing either a bartender, a bar or a distiller.

    On the other hand, were I to knowingly supply drug gangs with guns, there just might be a case against me - unless, of course, the transactions were fast and furious.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I doubt if you'd get in trouble Mr. ron
    February 10, 2013 11:32 am
    Especially if they went to a wide receiver.

    And that 2005 law exempted dealers as well as manufactures, I do understand your point, though.

    And Bull's Eye also equipped the Cafe Racer shooter. Don't know if that was a legal sale or not. They have quite a track record.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    So, THAT'S how Eric Holder got away with it !
    February 10, 2013 11:39 am
    So, that 2005 law extends into Mexico ???
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I doubt if Eric actually carried them across the border
    February 10, 2013 11:47 am
    so sure. Absolutely!

    I'll email him and tell him the legal strategy we've developed!

    I am sure he'll be pleased and relieved.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Macgyver wrote...
    Speaking in tongues? Is that really the phrase you meant Dave?
    February 10, 2013 6:42 pm
    As Pentecostalism expanded in the 20th century and attracted the attention of the wider world, psychologists initially thought of glossolalia in pathological terms, thinking that it was caused by mental illness. In 1927 George Cutten described speakers in tongues as people of low mental abilities. This explanation was effectively refuted in 1969 by a team from the University of Minnesota, who conducted an extensive study covering the United States, Mexico, Haiti and Colombia; they reached practitioners among Pentecostals, other Protestant groups, and Roman Catholics. Cutten's contentions concerning psychopathology, quoted and re-quoted through the years, have taken on an aura of fact among non-Pentecostal churchmen who are critical of the movement. His assumption that glossolalia is linked to schizophrenia and hysteria has not been supported by any empirical evidence. Subsequently, a 2003 statistical study in the religious journal Pastoral Psychology concluded that, among the 991 male evangelical clergy sampled, glossolalia was associated with stable extroversion, and contrary to some theories, completely unrelated to psychopathology.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }