The Sandy Hook settlement is just the beginning . . . This ain't over folks.

[AndyS]

Insurers and reinsurers providing liability coverage for gun manufacturers did so believing that federal law protected gun manufacturers from liability arising from shootings under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It seems likely that policy terms and conditions as well as pricing of the risk reflected that perceived liability protection.

Things have changed. The Connecticut plaintiffs filed their suit under the Connecticut Fair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the Bushmaster was a combat weapon and that Remington improperly marketed it to civilians – particularly targeting young men. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the federal PLCAA did have some carve-outs for state laws and subsequently the court declined Remington’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. It seems a safe bet that the families, of other Connecticut gun violence victims will file similar suits over past and/or future incidents.

There’s been another crack in the perceived liability protection afforded to gun manufacturers in the U.S. Last year, the State of New York enacted a law “that would classify the illegal or improper marketing or sale of guns as a nuisance…that supporters said would bolster litigation against gun companies.”

I suspect insurers and reinsurers providing liability for those in the manufacture and sale of guns will see an increasing number of lawsuits.

https://lawstreetmedia.com/viewpoints/viewpoints-settlement-changes-calculus-for-gunmakers-insurers/


"A public nuisance generally refers to any conduct that interferes with the rights of the public. The precise definition of public nuisance often varies by state and is embodied in civil and criminal statutes. LINK"

Public Nuisance is a long established legal principal rooted in common law. It is the principal that allows suing an automaker for a car that poses a danger to the public or any other product for that matter. The PLCAA indemnifies gun makers and sellers from that concept. The Sandy Hook settlement has opened a different door to that remedy: advertising and marketing campaigns that constitute a Public Nuisance by putting the public at large in danger.

Several states already have laws similar to Connecticut's and more are being passed. As gun makers are sued more often, successfully or not, the cost of insuring them will increase making it less attractive to take part in that market segment. Without insurance investors will avoid gun makers and sellers. If the makers and sellers are PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY responsible it becomes difficult to do business. So irony strikes the gun industry! The law they thought gave them armor against civil liability DOESEN'T.

From the article, "The number of mass shootings (defined as 4 or more people shot – killed or wounded) have increased every year except one from 2014 to 2021. In 2014 there were 269 mass shootings in the U.S. By 2021, this increased to 691 mass shootings. There have been 2,402 mass shootings in the U.S. in the past five years." I personally think this constitutes a Public Nuisance, how about you?

Still our side needs more help to counter the gun lobby and it's purchased legislators. We need to buy our own. It takes money. https://blog.greatnonprofits.org/9-organizations-making-progress-towards-gun-control/

[BlueGreenLady]

1. A nuisance?

A law “that would classify the illegal or improper marketing or sale of guns as a nuisance…seems like an understatement to me.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Your excellent post reminds me of this quote:

"A journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step."

We have begun that journey; we must continue.

And we will.