Danger Sign for Gun Makers and Sellers

0
Share

Connecticut judge Barbara Bellis on Thursday rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the maker of a gun used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that killed 20 children and 6 adults, the Hartford Courant reports.

Bellis is ignoring the law which gives immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers, at least for now. Criminalizing the manufacture and selling of guns will bankrupt the companies and it is a quick and ingenious way to destroy our Second Amendment.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), gun-makers are not liable for crimes committed with their products.

This decision is a blow to the Bushmaster AR-16 semiautomatic rifle.

Families of nine of the murdered children brought the case.

The gunmaker had nothing to do with this crime which was the result of a young madman and his foolish mother who gave him complete access to her guns despite knowing he was seriously mentally ill and likely dangerous.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied. The families look forward to continuing their fight in court,” Josh Koskoff, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a statement, per Newsweek.

The suit names Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 that was used in the shooting, Camfour Inc., a gun distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, a now-defunct gun shop in Connecticut where the rifle was purchased by the shooter’s mother in 2010, according to Newsweek.

This has become an issue for the Democrat presidential candidates.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she speaks during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attacked Bernie Sanders for supporting some immunity for gun makers.

Clinton likes to say that gun companies have zero liability for their goods but it’s untrue. The 2005 law – the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act or PLCAA – which she wants repealed, was in response to a deluge of lawsuits by cities against the gun industry in the 1990s and early 2000s that would have bankrupted the gun makers and sellers. The suits claimed they were engaging in negligent marketing and creating a public nuisance.

States like New York were demanding gun manufacturers make safer products and include prohibitive tracking devices.

The NRA pushed for the PCLAA, Bernie Sanders voted for it and Hillary Clinton did not.

Gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product and gun sellers can be sued for complicity in a crime but gun violence victims often want to blame the weapon that is used properly and not the criminal who misused it.

What’s next? Shall we sue Ford if a drunk driver uses their car to run over someone? Will we sue Cutco knife company if someone uses it to stab a person? It’s completely illogical but this a political issue and it doesn’t have to make sense.

 

Share