Select Page

Did Scotus Make A Mistake With Ruling To Allow Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers?

Did Scotus Make A Mistake With Ruling To Allow Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers?

Did the SCOTUS make a mistake in their ruling allowing a state lawsuit against a gun manufacturer to go forward? Does this now make gun manufacturers responsible for the use of their weapons? We look at this and break down the findings.

We all know the horror that Sanday Hook went through, a deranged gunman, after shooting and killing his mother set off for the elementary school and shot at first-graders and the staff. But as bad as this is, and it is horrible beyond comprehension, it doesn’t mean that a company that had nothing to do with the shooting should be held liable in any way.

Conflict of State And Federal Laws

Before we get started on this, we need to see the conflict with state and federal laws over this.

While the lawsuit can proceed, there is currently another appeal based on the Federal Law. The law does no disallow lawsuits; however, it clearly states, “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.”

However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held accountable.

They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.”

To state this more simply, as is stated in Gifford’s Law Center:

They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.”

  1. An action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
  2. An action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
  3. An act in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
  4. An action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
  5. An action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such action shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
  6. An action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.
Image result for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley

History

This law came about because, in 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers, saying: “You can’t expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens.” The city of Bridgeport, Connecticut, also sued several gun companies. Mayor Joseph Ganim said that the city’s action aimed at “creating law with litigation…. That’s the route that we’re going because [the industry has] always very effectively, with big money, lobbied the legislature and kept laws from being passed.”

In 2000, Smith & Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implement various measures to settle the suits. The contract required Smith & Wesson to sell guns only through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all firearms sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much broader potential impact than just Smith & Wesson.

This should have put an end to this here. Still, then after Sandy Hook, seeing that the shooter took his own life, the politicians wanted a pound of flesh, the far left wanted something, anything to start putting in place restrictions on gun sales if that failed to force gun manufacturers out of business.

Image result for supreme court

Supreme Court’s Move

Thus we now see where this is headed. What the Supreme Court did was say they had no right before a finding to interfere with a state’s court, but if the court’s findings are in opposition to federal law, federal law always takes precedence.

The states have a right to rule, the court has no right to stop this; if their findings hold the gun manufactures responsible for the intent of someone that took a weapon he never purchased (the weapon was the shooters mother’s gun, was taken from her and used to kill her first), then used to kill the children in Sandy Hook.

Responsibility

One has to ask, “If a gun is taken while committing a crime, remember, that this was against a family member makes it no less a crime, how then is the gun manufacturer responsible for this?”

If we are going to hold them responsible, what’s next? If a hammer kills someone, should the tool manufacturer be sued? Or, if a person is stabbed, the knife manufacturer should be liable? What if someone is killed in a drunk driving accident, should the car manufacturer be held responsible?

All of these are tools, they may differ in complexity, but they’re still tools, a toolmaker is not responsible for the use of the tools, only that they perform as intended. No one can control the end use of a product.

These are tools, they may differ in complexity, but they’re still tools, a toolmaker is not responsible for the use of the tools, only that they perform as intended. No one can control the end use of a product.

Again, we feel for the families that had to go through this horror, we can’t imagine what their hearts and souls are going through, but the law, not emotions should run the court of law, this is where the problem with this is going to come from.

The families rightfully feel cheated, who can they blame for this, inevitably not themselves, the shooter is dead, he had no estate to speak of. In regards to his family, he killed off the one he was living with, so inheritance is not an issue here. They are being manipulated by the attorneys who are trying to use this case to do what liberals have not been able to do with the vote, take away our guns.

Since you can’t take the guns away, go after the manufacturers, run them out of business, this then will take away the ability for people who wish to practice their rights to have access to guns.

What we see is a move like we have seen with free speech. Since the right can’t be attacked, it is given to us by the constitution. The means to have access to exercise this right is being attacked. When you can’t silence speech, you shut it down by going after people that support this speech; you shut down advertizers, censor what you don’t like with social networks.

It is the same with guns – since you can’t take the arms away, go after the manufacturers, run them out of business, this then will take away the ability for people who wish to practice their rights to have access to guns. Thus the assault once more is being set against us, and who is the left using to do this? The courts.

1 The PLCAA gives two examples of conduct which falls under this so-called “predicate” exception: 1) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product; and 2) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii).

2 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A).

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.