"Connecticut Judge Dismisses Newtown Lawsuit Against Gun Maker"

[branford]

36. Not quite.

First, there are other laws similar to the PLCAA. For instance, manufacturers of certain vaccines and airplane parts receive similar federal immunity due to risk of meritless, yet very expensive, lawsuits. Many states also have their own PLCAA equivalents, such as Colorado where one of the families of the movie shooter, employed by a gun control group, was ordered to pay the legal fees of the gun manufacturer and retailer under state law for a meritless lawsuit, despite ample warnings.

More importantly, the liability theories have already been tested and lost. There were hundreds of such lawsuits, and virtually all were lost at trial or appeal. Suing firearm manufacturers for gun deaths is comparable to suing car and alcohol manufacturers for drunk driving deaths. It's just legally unsound for a multitude of reasons. Fundamental products liability jurisprudence never had a firearm exception because some people hate guns.

The PLCAA was passed because certain groups, often states and localities using vasts sums of taxpayer money, were abusing the courts with nonsense nuisance lawsuits designed only to bankrupt the firearm industry with legal fees.

If other groups abused an industry involved with not only legal, but constitutionally protected products, I would support a similar immunity statute on their behalf.

What's not fair is that many gun controllers believe they have the right to abuse our justice system because they don't like a component of the Bill of Rights and are woefully unable to convince the needed democratic majorities in our country to agree to ideas.