Reply #142: I'd say it is appropriate to consider whether potential plaintiffs are denied their day in court. [View All]

If any existing or proposed immunity would keep legitimate plaintiffs with arguably legitimate claims out of court, I'd say that was a rigged game.

For me, I'd rather see the court itself decide whether a current case against the gun industry is "frivolous"-

The Defendant should not get to decide or define this based on a past case with different facts. Each new case has a different set of facts.

I'm also assuming that smart people could disagree with the NRA, Republican party and conservative judges as to whether all of the past cases were indeed "frivolous."

Again, you are basically arguing that defendants should be be able establish what claims can be brought against themselves-sounds pretty corrupt and one-sided to me- but that is typical Republican law making.

I might be open minded to a bill that would force the plaintiffs to pay costs, if the lawsuit was found to be illegitimate, dishonest, totally unwarranted, etc, but I cant see letting multi-million dollar corporations write laws for itself to hide behind.