Quantcast
Connect with us

After surprise ruling, firearm-makers may finally decide it’s in their interest to help reduce gun violence

Published

on

Mass shootings have become a routine occurrence in America.

Gun-makers have long refused to take responsibility for their role in this epidemic. That may be about to change.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12 refused to block a lawsuit filed by the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting victims, clearing the way for the litigation to proceed. Remington Arms, which manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used in the attack, had hoped the broad immunity the industry has enjoyed for years would shield it from any liability.

ADVERTISEMENT

The prospect of more claims from victims of mass shootings puts new pressure on the gun industry to reconsider the way it does business.

My research over the past 20 years on lawsuits against the gun industry examines how the threat of civil liability has the potential to promote safer gun designs, encourage more responsible marketing practice and reduce the risk of illegal retail sales.

The end of immunity

A 2006 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants gun manufacturers broad immunity from civil lawsuits that arise out of the criminal misuse of a weapon.

However, this immunity does not apply where a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.

The Sandy Hook families allege that Remington, by marketing certain guns to civilians, engaged in “unethical” business methods in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Specifically, they argued Remington “marketed, advertised and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Remington asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on the federal immunity statute, but the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a violation of the state’s unfair trade practices law qualifies as an exception to the industry’s liability shield.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear Remington’s appeal, the case will move into discovery and, potentially, trial in a Connecticut state court.

Since many states have unfair trade practices laws like Connecticut’s, gun violence victims are likely to bring similar claims elsewhere, effectively ending the gun industry’s federal immunity from civil lawsuits.

ADVERTISEMENT

Reducing gun violence

In other industries, the threat of civil liability has encouraged manufacturers to take steps in design, marketing and retail to reduce the risk of injuries associated with their products. Lawsuits have prompted automakers to develop safer car designs, vaping companies to end marketing aimed at teens and opioid manufacturers to take responsibility for oversupplying pills to irresponsible retailers.

Similarly, exposing gun manufacturers to civil liability is likely to encourage them to consider reducing the lethality of their civilian weapons. The popularity of semiautomatic firearms increases the risk that gun violence incidents will cause multiple gunshot wounds to large numbers of victims. Companies may wish to limit their liability exposure by reducing the firepower of their products.

ADVERTISEMENT

Additionally, companies may wish to reconsider marketing campaigns that extol the combat characteristics of weapons they sell on the civilian market. Such campaigns are likely to give rise to more lawsuits alleging that such promotional tactics increase the risk that their guns will be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

Finally, lawsuits may encourage gun companies to work harder to teach retailers how to spot and prevent illegal straw purchases, in which a person buys a gun for someone else who is legally prohibited from purchasing it. The industry’s trade association – the National Shooting Sports Council – has long had a training and certification program for retailers to reduce the risk of illegal straw purchases. Beefing up that effort is another way to reduce the industry’s liability exposure.

None of these actions would weaken the Second Amendment or undermine the commercial viability of the gun industry.

ADVERTISEMENT

Only the beginning

Regardless of whether the Sandy Hook families ultimately prevail, the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal in the case appears to have blown a giant hole in the gun industry’s immunity from civil litigation.

However, this may not be the court’s last word on the subject. The justices might have another opportunity to review the case if the Sandy Hook plaintiffs win and the case works its way back up to the high court. The Supreme Court could then decide that the exception to federal immunity applies more narrowly.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that other state courts will adopt the Connecticut Supreme Court’s interpretation of the immunity exception. Federal courts in New York and California have rejected similar lawsuits. Also, unfair trade practices laws in other states frequently limit lawsuits to product consumers, excluding claims by others injured by the products.

In addition, gun violence victims face other challenges in winning their claims. They must convince judges and juries that routine industry marketing strategies constitute unfair trade practices and prove that those practices played a role in enabling criminal attacks. Prior to passage of federal immunity, no plaintiff ever won a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer for an injury arising out of criminal misuse of a weapon.

ADVERTISEMENT

Finally, litigation is not a panacea. Stemming the epidemic of gun violence in the U.S. will require a concerted effort by industry, government and organized citizen groups across the political spectrum.

Lawsuits can help jump-start this process, but they are only the beginning.

[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day. ]The Conversation

Timothy D. Lytton, Distinguished University Professor & Professor of Law, Georgia State University

ADVERTISEMENT

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

We should look closely at Britain’s decision to elect a man so renowned for his untrustworthiness

Published

on

In previous British elections, to say that trust was the main issue would have meant simply that trust is the trump card – whichever leader or party could secure most trust would win. Now, the emerging question about trust is whether it even matters anymore.

This is at least partly because Brexit has deepened the crisis of trust. The 2019 election was always going to be about Brexit – and not only because some people would vote according to where they stood on the matter. It was also because the emotional turbulence initiated by the 2016 referendum continues to dominate national politics in a more general way.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Here are 9 things people say about exercise that are utter hogwash

Published

on

It can be hard to include exercise in our busy lives, despite the best of intentions. There are a lot of reasons people don’t exercise, and a lot of misconceptions about exercise. Here are nine common misconceptions about exercise and what research actually tells us.

1. I was fit once, so I don’t need to exerciseUnfortunately, the health benefits of exercise won’t last if you don’t sustain your exercise regime. A significant reduction or drop out can cause a marked loss of initial benefits, such as cardiovascular fitness and endurance. Consistency is the key. Mix it up and keep it interesting as maintaining high levels of physical activity throughout your life is associated with the best health outcomes.

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

How Boris Johnson’s Conservatives swept to election victory in Labour heartlands

Published

on

Welcome to a whole new political world. The UK general election of 2019 has delivered a seismic shift in the balance of the country’s politics, the consequences of which are very hard, if not impossible to predict. But what’s clear is that Boris Johnson has broken the legislative deadlock with regard to Europe and will now wield power in a manner that his recent predecessors could only have dreamed of.

To this extent the political system appears to have worked – the people have spoken. Clearly they want to “get Brexit done”, but the result also suggests the existence of a major disconnect between the UK’s main opposition Labour party and a big chunk of its base.

Continue Reading