ATF Bags 55 Hell's Angels

[P-Ratt]

For 2 yrs and who knows how much money spent on this operation, I would expect a bit more than 50 firearms. (Doesn't sound like much for trafficking.) Seems it should have been 50 firearms for each of the 55 people to make it more worthwhile.

[jkgooch]

Help me out here; I'm having a little trouble following the thread of your hypo. In order to fit the gun scenario, GM would have to distribute the car to a dealer who is known by GM to sell cars to people who intentionally use them to kill or to straw men who in turn do the same. In that case, sure, there might be a limited moral culpability for GM, though little justifiable legal culpability. It doesn't fit: the DMV doesn't license dealers to sell, nor does it bear sole responsibility for yanking the license of a dangerous driver (shared w/ law enforcement). I don't even think you need a license to buy a car--just to drive one. Finally, there's no administrative connection between what the DMV knows about Janklow's driving record and GM, as there is in the case of gun manufacturers.



The biggest difference between your example and firearms aside from the mechanics of it, however, is obvious: the Caddy, while dangerous, is not specifically designed to kill. (I give you target-sport-specific pistols and such; but then how many of them are ever used in crimes? Comparatively few.) Car dealers are in fact held to civil liability when their products are found to be unreasonably dangerous for the use for which they are designed. That very analysis is why the gun manufacturer liability suits have so far failed: a gun, specifically designed for deadly effect, can not be considered unreasonably dangerous in its design when it is used to kill someone.



Here I would argue that the very nature of a firearm takes it beyond the pale of normal products, even dangerous products like herbicide or pesticide, etc. The MAC-10 is designed to kill people. The AK-47 is designed to kill people. Most fully- and semi-automatic weapons (hunting pieces aside) are in fact designed with the idea that they will be used to impose deadly force or the threat of deadly force against another human. Manufacturers market them that way, highlighting those qualities that make them better at that purpose. I understand that you want to take guns out of the picture in order to discuss the logic of the argument, but I don't think you're actually having the same argument when the substituted product does not have these inherent qualities.



I don't think it is unreasonable, given the nature of the product, to hold a manufacturer liable in some degree for monitoring and controlling the distribution of that product, insofar as they are able. Especially when it is demonstrated that they had a certain degree of knowledge about what's going on.

[ValknMag]

The DMV is unlike the ATF, granted, in that the ATF creates rules and then enforces them...a dangerous unbalancing of power, like in the EPA. Remember that I dragged automobiles dealers into the argument--and when you buy a car from a dealer, they do need your license because they perform the title transfer functions. That probably isn't something they would allow the buyer to do, since they want to get their name off the title. Can it be done without a valid driver's license? I don't know that. Granted, the DMV couldn't pull Jank's license without law enforcement telling them to, but when ATF both creates and enforces the rules, they need to do their jobs. Regardless, at some point the title needs to leave the dealership's name, and if the buyer is not licensed then they'll have a straw man do the paperwork.



Yes, handguns and semi-automatic weapons are designed to kill. Sorry if you meant to shock me with that. The deal is, though, they are meant to kill LEGALLY. I fully support self-defense with a weapon. If a pistol barrel explodes during use, the manufacturer is held responsible. If the pistol kills a perpetrator in the commission of a crime, the product performed as marketed.



Get beyond the fact that most weapons are designed to kill people. That statement does not make me pale nor give me the vapors. Handguns are one of the most tightly regulated products on the market, and the ATF is at fault for not enforcing rules. Congress makes most of the laws governing firearms, but ATF makes policy, and exists to enforce it. My point is, the ATF is not doing its job. That should cause outrage, but for some reason you think that paying taxes and giving up personal rights (which you may not choose to exercise) to these people is somehow acceptable.

[jkgooch]

In no particular order:



"but for some reason you think that paying taxes and giving up personal rights (which you may not choose to exercise) to these people is somehow acceptable."



Wait, you want them to do their job, but you also think the job is unreasonable? I'm confused by your position, as you seem to be about mine. I'll take you at your earliest assertion, that the ATF must do its job.



Yes, the ATF should do its job. I agree. They have many jobs, however, and not enough money to perform them all. I have said, repeatedly, if you want to give them more money so they can hire enough people to do all the jobs that they are statutorily compelled to attempt, good. I agree. Let's have them do the job. Of course, in your last paragraph you imply that you don't think they should even be in business. As I have said, several times, I don't care who does the job--but somebody should. Dealers are actually more able to do so at this point than the ATF, which maxes its budget every year and can't do its work because it can't hire enough agents.



Yes, the ATF both makes regulations or policy and enforces it, but that's what you get from administrative agencies no matter their mandate. You can argue about whether that's a good form of government or not--but not with me. There's no point because we aren't changing any time soon. But the real argument about "making and enforcing" in one branch is not about over-enforcement. Over-enforcement can't be sustained because the enacting legislation always lays out clear limits--if it didn't it would be stricken as unconstitutional. The problem is rather one of capture, which I agree the EPA currently suffers from but to my knowledge the ATF does not. No one is suggesting that the ATF is in cahoots with the manufacturers.



Your point about strawmen is inapposite as far as the manufacturers and the ATF. Their data goes to dealers, not necessarily buyers.



I didn't introduce the fact that guns are deadly to shock you. Sorry if you think that; it simply isn't the case. Obviously you're a courageous and stong-willed person who isn't afraid of a little death.



The reason I made that point is that liability principles embedded in our legal system for centuries take into account the inherent dangerousness of the activity or the object when balancing legal exposure. The greater the danger, the greater the liability--even when the product or activity itself is legal. An object specifically designed to kill is inherently the most dangerous of items. That's what this comes down to--I don't care how you happen to feel about self-defense, etc. That, too, is a legally venerable doctrine. In this case, it can easily co-exist with liability.



If your argument is let the ATF do its job, then I agree with you that they should. We'll have to divert a little of that Brown & Root money to do it, but since they're over-charging it shouldn't be a problem. If your argument is that gun manufacturers can't be considered liable, I disagree with that. I have a sound legal foundation for that argument. What's yours? I think it can be summed up thusly:



"From my cold, dead hand!!"



Which is fine. But ultimately not an argument.

[jkgooch]

PS: I meant manufacturers not "dealers" in my second para. after the quote.