DevsAdvocate

Again, it is up to the Courts to decide if Shore Shot can be held liable or not. The point here is, the more dangerous the weapon, the more responsibility someone has to take. Is a NICS check the only due diligence Shore Shot would need to perform to sell someone an RPG-7? I sure hope not.

Liability insurance exists to cover your potential legal fees.

That's because, in your world, the scenarios presented are easy to determine in a lawsuit. For one thing, I didn't say firearms dealers and makers need to get insurance, just that it would be a logical evolution of increased liability. All businesses carry insurance for various liabilities.

Any weapon the police Federal Government is "allowed" to have.

Again, some subtle differences. How can Ford/GM ever be held liable for someone driving improperly when the State is the one who issues licenses? As for being held accountable, yes, they would be, to the extent which that can be proven. You basically answered your own question with the "21 year old drunk who crashed into a school bus" scenario.

Your solution isn't much of a solution, just more of same thing worded differently.

Why would Ford/GM or the dealership be responsible? The State is the one responsible for ensuring the people can drive. As for the rest: nope, you really can't! So when applying the same thing to firearms, why is it different? They can still be held liable if there is evidence of liability. But in that instance, they are not.

S2D2, by keeping the Government largely in the loop, you're putting a lot of faith in it to not infringe the Rights its not supposed to infringe on.

You don't get to choose. The Government does as long as it has the liability for it.

So you wish to rely on the status quo then? With the Government punishing us for our future wrong doings by limiting access to weapons we rightfully have access to?

Eh, so we end up back to square one? The more the Government is involved in the process, the less Rights you have. I mean really, what would the difference be between getting an 'FID' versus the existing tax stamp/registration scheme?

Listen, I totally get you, but that won't fly. For one thing: the Government technically 'shields' the firearms industry from a lot of liability by having rules and regulations it deemed necessary to keeping guns safe. All companies need to do is show their paperwork that they met these regulations (however flawed) and they're protected. When the Government assumes liability, it controls what is liable. Look at socialized medicine... do you think if a doctor in the UK screws up, that you can sue them into oblivion? Nope. If we want our gun Rights back, then the firearms industry and gun owners need to re-assume a lot of liability.

Can't. Firearms ownership and use is protected as a Right. Motorcycling isn't.

That's a terrible comparison. Ford and GM can't be easily sued for such a thing because the State has taken the liability on itself. If someone crashes a car out of gross incompetence, then the State's motor vehicle agency is responsible, not Ford/GM. However, let's look at alcohol: for one thing, it's never sold directly from the brewery, but to distributors or local stores. Those stores are legally prohibited from selling to someone under 21. But let's say one salesman lets an 18 year old buy a bunch of booze without checking his ID and that kid drives his car into someone and kills them. While the 18 year old is ultimately responsible, the salesman is also partially liable. He didn't due any diligence in checking the ID. If he did, the kid might not have gotten alcohol. See? Same with guns. The NRA and industry would be responsible for ensuring that the people who buy their firearms are trained, in addition to them showing that they do not live with a prohibited person. A perfect example of this at work is the "We Card" program, something set up by the tobacco companies and their partnerships to reduce their liability regarding underage smoking. They have a similar program for Alcohol sales as well. It's not perfect, but it's Constitutional, and offers a pathway to exercising our 2nd Amendment Rights in a way we will never achieve as long as the Government is assuming liability in firearms transfers.

They could sue, and maybe rightfully should. But will they win? Doubtful. The worse that will happen is the FFL(s) are investigated and subpoenaed by those pursuing a lawsuit, and they would provide evidence that they had no knowledge of any evidence that this lady had a kid that would do this. Throw in liability caps and insurance, and the issue isn't that bad.

Wait, so you found a 7th unknown one? How rare are these??

I don't see what's nuts about it. Want to get into the business of dealing missiles and bombs, then you have to assume the liability of people misusing it. You think mining companies who buy explosives would get off scott free if someone stole those explosives and killed a lot of people with them? No. Securing that stuff in a reasonable manner is part of their responsibility in handling/buying it. The same would be true of FFLs. IMO, this is probably our best bet at allowing "fun" stuff to be sold. Few FFLs would even bother given the added costs, and those that do would require some decently strong restrictions and training requirements to do it in order to reduce their liability. Essentially, it would create the Firearms Liability Insurance market... something the NRA could enter into.

Your point is? You can't have it both ways: you either will never have machine guns, or you will have to accept that it will be difficult to have them. Are you telling me that doctors don't face lawsuits? Even if they do their jobs to a 'T' they still face liability that is inherent in their profession. Mistakes happen, things get missed, and it's ultimately on them. That's why they get malpractice insurance.

I disagree. Doctors and other professions carry a great deal of liability, yet they manage. Granted, the easiest thing you can do is cap liability. For Assault Rifles, it would be $200,000k max, for Rocket Launchers, it would be $1,000,000. For Stinger Anti-Air missiles, it would be $10,000,000 etc.

As a libertarian, I have a solution: since the 2nd Amendment forbids the Government from interfering with your Rights (or any other person), then the easiest way to go about this is by using market pressures via the assignment of liability. Place weapons like machine guns, SBSs, SBRs, suppressors, in a "liability" category where an FFL can be sued if they are misused. The caveat is: the FFL would also be allowed to require training or other certifications prior to releasing a firearm. So, Nick, let's say you know me, you've shot with me, you know who I am. You trust that I won't go crazy and use a machine gun to go Rambo. You could reasonably transfer me a full-auto FNP-90 and not worry. However, if I'm some slacker looking kid with a hoodie holding guns 'gangsta' style, you would probably not be to thrilled to sell me an MP-5K... so in order to shield yourself from liability you could require training. It's a double edged sword, I know. It puts a lot of weight on the FFLs. But I feel it's the best compromise to ensure safety without totally infringing on our Rights. Obviously this is also a simplistic explanation, I plan on going into more detail in my blog.

Honestly, the whole "people are untrained and stupid thing" doesn't really phase me. You trust the average idiot with a 12 ga, or a 9mm handgun, but you draw the line at full auto? One bullet is enough to kill... Honestly, the solution is simple: have ranges restrict membership and require training classes. Give ROs the power to boot people out and force the to get additional training if they're still grossly incompetent.

Blind pins are reversible... Or at least removable.

NJ isn't perfect by a long shot, but moving is a PITA for a lot of people. Do I give up my nice job, home, nice town, friends, family, all so I can carry a gun or have a 30 round magazine? Ideally, I'd like both.

Then you could appeal it and win. Unless you are part of some group...

This is a bit redundant, no? I mean, if they're already stepping over our existing Rights, what's gonna stop them from stepping over a new Amendment?