Democrats Introduce Legislation To Allow Shooting Victims To Sue Gun Makers
Articles,  Blog

Democrats Introduce Legislation To Allow Shooting Victims To Sue Gun Makers

Democrats in both the House and the Senate
have put forward legislation that would actually repeal rules that are currently in place and
have been in place since 2005 that give immunity to gun makers, gun manufacturers, gun sellers,
ammunition wholesalers, all the people involved in the gun industry. Basically right now they have immunity from
being sued by the victims and their families of shootings here in the United States. While House and Senate Democrats have come
up with a piece of legislation called the equal access to justice for victims of gun
violence act, that would basically take those protections and immunity away from the gun
industry and say, Nope, you are now open for business in terms of being sued when your
products are involved in a fatality, in an atrocity, whatever it is, your putting this
product on the market, this product is killing people. You should be able to be sued for that. Here’s the thing, you have gun rights activists
out there right now. Lawrence King of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation who came out and said the following in response, he said, you would know more
charge or blame Ford or General Motors for drunk driving accidents. Basically saying like, yeah, people drive
drunk. It’s not the fault of the would automobile
maker. Just like, oh, people get shot. It’s not the fault of the gun maker. You have a valid point, but let me go ahead
and expand upon that. Suppose Ford or GM was out, their marketing,
their tool as, hey, these vehicles are so easy to drive that even a drunk could do it. Or maybe they sponsor an event where they’re
just given out free alcohol all day while selling vehicles. Then yes, suddenly the liability shifts a
little bit, doesn’t it? And that’s what these gone lawsuits would
be about. Not just the fact that, oh, somebody went
out and shot somebody. Let’s sue the gun maker. It’s not gonna work like that because yes,
that would be a huge issue. You can’t just sue somebody for their thing
being involved in a bad thing. However, if the marketing of these guns, ammunition,
whatever it is, is marketed in a way that glorifies any kind of violence in any way. And it could just be talking about how fast
it can get bullets out of the barrel that could make them liable. If gun sellers in this country aren’t doing
their due diligence, if they’re not performing the background checks, if they’re selling
guns to people who they know shouldn’t have them, that is a new avenue of liability under
this particular act. Now, the sad part here is that obviously the
Democrats support it, which is great. Republicans will not, this not going to pass
the Senate, and then even if it did, you’re definitely not going to get Donald Trump to
sign it in a law. And then at that point, you’re probably not
gonna have enough votes to override that veto. But what this shows is the Democrats are at
least trying to take this issue seriously. Now they’re trying to do something. And if you don’t think that lawsuits would
be an effective way to crack down on the gun industry while still not it, you know, getting
on to, uh, you know, basically repealing people’s rights. Think again, look at what’s happened to the
tobacco industry. Look at what’s happened to these best this
industry. Look what’s happened with automobile safety
in this country. Every single advancement we have made in any
one of those product areas is 100% because of lawsuits, because of liability. The same thing could happen with the firearms
industry, and this may be considered, I guess, I dunno, irrelevant to this particular topic,
but let me go ahead and point out. In 2005, when this original immunity bill
came up, Bernie Sanders did vote to give gun makers immunity. That is the biggest stain on Bernie Sanders
record. It is something that he still to this day,
rightfully so, catches hell for, I don’t agree with this vote at all. And Yeah, I do think that that is a problem. And his a rationale for it, saying, oh, well,
there’s a lot of hunters in Vermont and I, you know, I didn’t want to, I don’t think
they should be held liable. You, they’re just hunters. They’re not out there killing people. That’s a bad excuse. And I bring that up to kind of go on even
more of an aside right here because I see a lot of people out there attacking certain
candidates for one thing that they voted for, like literally throughout their entire career. Like, oh no, she voted for this thing this
one time. She’s horrible. Okay, well Bernie voted for a really bad thing
to a really, really bad thing. Every single person running for president
right now has some pretty bad votes in their history, every single one of them. So if you’re going to pick a single vote and
say that because of that vote, I’m not voting for this person, then you’re missing the bigger
picture. Same thing with Barney’s gunboat. It doesn’t turn me off a 100% I’m not happy
with it. But I think if this legislation today were
to come to a vote, I think we’d see a different vote from Bernie Sanders, 100% I think he
understands his mistake and I think he understands why he made that mistake. Same thing with a lot of these other candidates. Yeah, they’ve all got bad spots in their histories. The question is who has evolved the most,
but back to this particular legislation here, again, this is not just going to open the
flood gates. You’re not going to be able to sue a gun maker
or seller every time somebody in this country gets shot. What it would do is allow step by step to
get the bad actors out of the business, essentially drive them into bankruptcy, and that would
prevent a lot of these guns from going in the hands of dangerous people who then go
out and commit these atrocities and lacking any real gun control measures coming out of
Congress. This is the next best thing.


  • Gaspard De Coligny

    In most disaster movies, the bad guy who would play Monsanto Bayer would rather kill all lifeforms on this sorry excuse of a planet than allow these law to happen.

  • colonel 100

    This bill is just bad news. It will lead down a slippery slope.

    I understand suing because a defective gun nearly killed you
    But suing because someone used your product to commit murder will not fly well in court.

  • Yoda Man

    this is a terrible idea. because its "gun violence" not "people violence" right? humanity is never going to go any further than we are right now if we cant even put blame on ourselves instead of the inanimate objects we place all the blame on when we do things with them.

  • senta ukrai

    I’m on the left. I love the ideas of the the green new deal, Medicare for all, ssi for all, and most all leftist ideas. However this is one piece of legislation I disagree with entirely. If you want to sue the distributors, fine, there is grounds there. The makers…not so much.

  • shadowdance4666

    We should sue auto makers for DUI’s. They can put ignition interlock devices in new cars for over 30 years which disables vehicles from starting. Because driving DUI kills more people especially children. Driving is privilege while the right to bare arms is constitutionally protected right. There’s a big difference. It’s a shame that even the non mainstream media is following the mainstream media lead with disarming people. It’s exactly what the British pushed during the Revolutionary War. Google it. Defend your rights. Not your privilege to drive DUI

  • 앤더슨프란

    YUP. Drug suppliers have been arrested for giving a lethal dose to people! Guns don't kill people… people kill people! And people make guns!

  • Brian C. Copper

    how about more lawsuits against families of mass shooters that didn't do more to prevent their crazy relatives from obtaining/owning guns in the first place ?

  • unearthly 333
    If people wanna kill, there are many ways.
    More examples: 911 with planes, cars driving through crowds, bombs, etc.
    This is for the guy who asked "when is the last time you saw a mentally ill person kill without guns." But he promptly removed the comment because he must have actually THOUGHT about it after posting.

  • Angel of War I am

    hollywood meets disgruntled spoiled brats ..

    democrats then use data to kill the 2nd amendment ..

    democrats happy !!

  • kathy Turner

    It seems right to me. If someone drinks at a bar and gets into their car and causes a accident the bar gets sued so if I buy a gun and kill someone with it the gun manufacturer should be sued. Oh wait a minute i forgot in American and have money you can do what ever you want and just get a ticket. How many rich people sit in jail?

  • S S A

    Middle Eastern civilians should be able to sue the US government and defense contractors (like Blackwater). Those war criminals need to be executed.

  • John Debest

    Good intentions, but reaches out into power tools, bicycles, sports equipment and on and on. If gun makers supplied a hard case and trigger lock would be a good start. ALSO the easiest way to de-fang a semiautomatic rifle is to limit magazine capacity to 5 rounds maximum. Would not be a violation of the 2nd amendment as the magazine is an accessory.

  • Dennis Kelly

    I am a 74 year old, white male who is also a 100% disabled veteran. I am so sick of the idiots who think the 2nd amendment gives them right to slaughter our children, or anyone who they decide is not acceptable to them. These are the morons of this country. Also I notice that the loudest and dumbest of them were actually chicken shits who never fought for this country. They had bone spurs, or rich daddies, and those gutless morons think they have the right to decide how this country should be run, no other country would put up with this crap. I can’t wait to see how the morons react to this note. You are JACKASS’s

  • serafine666

    Alright then, the Democrats are being more slippery than passing legislation saying that it's open season on gun manufacturers to file a cascade of nuissance lawsuits. But that's precisely what this will do. If you make your product look appealing, which is the entire purpose of any advertisement, you can be sued so gun industry, either stop advertising your product or being harassed with frivolous lawsuits, in response to you doing literally nothing wrong. And if you're a seller of guns and a bereaved parent can accomplish the painfully simple task of convincing 12 ordinary people that the guy behind the counter should have had ESP and magically discerned that the disheveled but law-abiding mechanical engineer with no history of violence or mental disorder is going to take his new handgun and shoot some place up, you're fucked. Fortunately, we have Republicans… which is a sentence that is as painful for me to say as it likely is for people to read because in general, fuck those guys. But in this instance, by protecting a legal industry from being bled to death because their legal product is legally purchased and used in an illegal manner, they're on the side of the angels. That fact will not change.

  • Raymond McComas


  • Javier Lopez

    Or how the handle is easy to clean, or is has been coated so as that hands leave NO MARKS, wouldn't that rethoric give some dangerous ideas?

  • Margaret caldarone

    I want all the children in America to refuse to go into an unsafe environment. Strike Strike Strike. How are our children to make good grades if they are scared for their lives everyday. Mothers kiss their children not knowing if they will see them again. This is what our politicians expect of us. It may be a little inconvenient for a while. How about a designated home during school hours. If they refused to go to school, maybe these people would not be so concerned with their pocket books and think about helping them. If the world knew American Children have refused to go to school because of their safety it will at least get attention.Would you send your children into the front lines of war. This is what our politians expect of us. Does Trump fell guilty when those children are murdered. The answer is no. Remember when the NRA gave him money for his election and he said I will never forget you.(& I'll be loyal you no.matter how many people are murdered)
    Just dont go to school take your books and study at home till they get their conscious together.( If that would ever happen)Its a good idea. Think about it an organize.

  • beatrix the great

    I think it would be better if we could sue the NRA. they're the ones that push against laws that would protect would be victims

  • Charlie Cross

    Unfortunately this will go nowhere due to Mitch mc connell's corruption in relation to the National Russian Association

  • Aaron

    I'm a hard core democrat and i'm against taking gun mfg's to court over a shooting. Now if the gun makers market the weapons in a way that makes someone want to kill people then yes! Take them to court! If I sell someone a gun and that gun is used in a murder you have no right to take me to court unless I knew the person buying the gun was going to kill someone with it. I'm a strong supporter of bernie and I understand fully why he voted the way he did.

    This isn't a democrat vs republican thing. This is just common sense. Democrats in congress only want to try to pass laws that will piss off republicans and get them in the news. We need to be demanding EVERYONE in congress actually start working for the people. Not this Piss poor tit for tat house shit.
    see ya!

  • That1lameguy

    America is fucked my friends. No one is going to agree with each other. Liberals and conservatives will never agree on most topics, especially guns. There’s probably gonna be a revolution if liberals don’t use common sense. If the revolution does happen, you better be on the right side of that gun barrel.

  • Ben Lutz

    Funniest (ie. Craziest) thing I ever saw was when Busch Beer started selling the stuff in Camouflage cans so you can go out in the woods and get loaded with your guns. Hmmm…

  • D Mohr

    If guns kill people then pencils misspell words and spoons make people fat. If your so opposed to guns then dont even play games with guns in them. Gun control laws dont do shit

  • Rory Lewis

    If a product is deemed legal then why should a company be liable for that products misuse. If your creative enough I guess you could kill someone with a desert spoon. I would be more comfortable with laws restricting how guns are marketed, sold or used and by whom. This legislation seems a little bit off base.

  • keith mcdowell

    It will never happen and it should not. Should I be able to sue a car company if someone gets drunk and kills someone in their car? The supremes will shoot it down anyway. It is just more bullshit feelgood legislation accomplishing nothing.

  • Cassandra noneyabusiness

    I enjoy you but you're wrong, there IS a candidate who hasn't taken part in passing shit legislation. Andrew Yang baby!

  • Sarah Telles

    Good, this makes sense seeing as the manufacturers are most likely the ones putting bribe money in the pockets of the NRA leaders in order to keep military grade weapons in the hands of civilians and easier for purchase than hand guns and hunting rifles. They should be used especially since they wanted mentally ill people to purchase guns again to maximize their own profits. They shouldn't make money every time some Fox news host or NRA leader claims that every democrat is out to steal your already purchased guns from you, aren't people tired of that lie.

  • Gregory Bennett

    No. That is ridiculous. Do I get to sue Ford because some retard runs into me? A motor vehicle is deadly weapon

  • I'm Aimée Miami

    But if someone drives drunk after leaving a bar and kills someone, doesn't the bar selling the alcohol to the driver face consequences?

  • I'm Aimée Miami

    I think they should just put a 1000% tax on bullets that goes to a fund for gun violence victims and family and for mental health initiatives. Like a sin tax that goes back to the people it affects.
    Then it would cost a lot to buy a lot ammo and be harder for a 16-18 year old to murder his peers and those who want a gun to protect themselves in reality don't need that many bullets considering they only plan to use it if they are in dangers, and those who want to own a lot of guns and ammo because "'Murica" can help pay the consequences of America's gun epidemic.

  • Kristian Kumpula

    I'm torn on this one because suing a weapon manufacturer for their products killing people is basically just suing them for the fact that their products are working as intended. They're designed to do precisely that. It's the politicians and the lobbyist that allowed deadly weapons to end up in the wrong hands that should be held accountable.

  • jersey joe

    Really, so every gun manufacture will pull all ads from every gun magazine. So it comes down to the sole purpose of a weapon is just to shoot at paper targets?

  • DonCDXX

    This is the kind of bill Democrats push when the want to lose elections. It motivates the right and irritates the gun-owning left.

  • Vito Cirilla

    I think the ones who killed this bill should remember one thing:
    2020 is not that far away,and I don't know about anyone else,but I won't forget this(let alone Trump's government shutdown)and everything the Republicans are doing(or not doing in this case)WILL factor into my voting decisions.

  • MrNotme777

    How is it the gun manufacturer or seller's responsibility I thought I was an adult and was responsible for my own actions. Next time my daughter gets a bad grade in School can we sue the school because they gave her a bad grade?

  • bikkiikun

    Lets not forget, bartenders can be held liable (in some cases even criminally) for giving alcohol to an obvious drunk or somebody known to become violent when drunk.

  • David Edwards

    I guess they have a good reason for this, but if they pass this bill, imagine all the other things that will have to be allowed.
    Knife manufacturers can be sued if you cut yourself. Match makers sued if you burn yourself. Car and bike makers sued if you have an accident and someone is injured. Like Americans aren't looking for things to sue for already.
    If someone makes something then sells it, it can't be their responsibility to keep track of that item after it is sold again, surely?

  • Michael Kendzior

    States that do not carry rational common sense gun laws which over 90% of the country agrees with should be sued.


    Gun hating dems showing their ignorance again. Gun manufacturers can be sued when they make a faulty product. The misuse of their product. No!

  • JH JH


  • Vault Boy 1134

    it is stupid to sue the manufaturers…and using the whole car thing as an example is also stupid…u wouldnt sue ford for a drunken fatality, u would sue budweiser and the drunk basterd…because theres alot of drunken idiots shooting off guns too that kill people…the lawsuit should be squarely on congress and senate, for lack of policy, and the shooter….if someone burns down a forrest with a Bic lighter,and kills and injures people….would u sue Bic?…just because a product is used in an unsafe and malicious manner…u cant blame the person that created the product…because then where would it end…you would have millions of frivolous lawsuits apon the millions that already exist….its easy to understand the frustration and motivation to reduce the number of victims due to gun violence but the accountability is misplaced…just this simple man whore's opinion

  • dlee t

    On the basis of capitalism and profit sharing RGR gained 3.99% in after-hours training on Feb 14th 2018. Sturn Ruger & Co earned .285% profit off of each child murdered and paid no dividends to the source of that profit. All gains earned on the day of a mass shooting should be surrender for dividends to the families. When no profit comes from killing citizens the gun makers might address safety. Muskets are cool. Wheel Lock vs Flint Lock vs Match Lock competition with long rifles at 60 inches or pistols. They are the guns the 2nd amendment speaks of as no bullets were invented for decades.

  • M J

    I'm sure republican reps have flown in a boeing lately and are highly offended by them. I think comparing guns to boeing could be a good argument, from being a shit business to creating long lasting psychological issues, and stealing life.

  • Otak313

    It's a slippery slope to be able to sue the makers of a product. The advertising would have to be pretty extreme to warrant blaming them, but I'm all for tighter background checks and especially for closing the loopholes of selling at gun shows.

  • Summa Summarum

    Gun manufacturers get immunity.
    Big pharma gets immunity.
    Monsanto gets immunity.
    Really America? Pull it together.

  • Invader Tak

    Sarah Winchester (Winchester Rifles), fucking hated guns and felt guilt for all the deaths that helped make her family disgustingly wealthy. Seems what little morals and values gun manufacturers had died with her generation.

  • blueboyblue

    This set a bad precedence. That means the Car Makers can be sued for an idiot driver crashing his car. They can only be sued if there is specific flaw in the Car itself that cause danger. The same with guns, there is no liability unless the product is defective. Bear in mind that as many people are killed by Motor Vehicles as are killed by Guns from all causes. As to gun being made to kill people, only 0.0037% of guns ever actually murder anyone. 99.9963% of Guns in America NEVER murder anyone EVER.


    This is just stupid how and why are they at fault for an idiot? Smh… hope this doesn't goes anywhere.
    Let's not be stupid. Let's start suing McDonald's for making us fat!!!!

  • shadowalkerwho

    I actually disagree with this, the gun makers haven't broken the law and as long as they haven't they shouldn't be culpable for following the rules laid out for them. The people that shooting victims should be able to sue is the individual reps who have refused to pass updated laws to try and protect the people including background checks and limitations on marketing that WOULD make them (the manufacturers) liable if they continued those trade practices.

  • Lia Mari

    It’s really not fair to nail Bernie for that vote. At the time, he was doing his job representing the majority in his state. Vermont does have a lot of hunters. I’m a Vermonter, I see them every day, and those who don’t hunt, often do eat the meat the hunters being home.

    I think the whole argument was uninformed and right wing 2nd amendment fear mongering, but you can’t blame Bernie for doing his job. He has to represent those folks as well.

    Lucky for us they’ve gone pretty quiet.

  • InYourDefense

    The purpose of this strategy is to eliminate access to guns for civilians. Weapons would only be made for government use because settling to civilians would carry the risk of lawsuits.

    Since most homicides by firearm are committed by people who have obtained then illegally, being able to sue gun manufactures will have no effect on that number.

    Stupid law

  • 44WarmocK77

    Sorry, but that bill doesn't really make sense. If you wanna stop gun makers etc from encouraging people to shoot each other, simply force them to stop that with a bill instead.

  • TheLoneRideR

    People always hate and fear what they don't understand, and often take the easy road instead of doing the right thing. I am not surprised that a bunch of anti-gun politicians supported this, nor am I surprised many people support it. If they don't care about the rights of their fellow citizens they sure as hell aren't going to care about the legal rights of a corporation. It's all the same to them, throw everyone under the bus and walk away whistling.

  • TheLoneRideR

    Consider also the precedent it sets, if you make product liability not just about the product functioning as designed without dangerous defects, but instead turn it into a way to hold one person (or company) civilly liable for another person breaking the law, we could all theoretically be sued by anyone who uses anything we had anything to do with. AND when you do this, will that not then set a legal precedent which can be used by the criminal as a defense against his very actions when caught? It risks not only subjecting people to liability for other people's crimes but in the same instant establishing a legal out for those who committed the crimes…

  • M18 Hellcat

    You cannot blame a inanimate object for maiming and death caused by a violent offender. Just as you cannot place the blame on the manufacture of a truck that is used by a violent offender who is behind the wheel running down people. What we can blame is the VIOLENT ANIMAL using the tool to maim and kill!! What we NEED TO DEMAND is that the punishment for a violent offender be VERY HARSH AND VERY QUICK as a deterrent!! Taking care of this TRASH for years on end in prison deters NOTHING!!! Why not blame and sue the violent offenders parents/family and any acquaintances for not noticing he/she had a violent streak??? You know why you can't? Because it is just as STUPID as wanting to sue an inanimate object manufacture!!! I am so SICK of STUPID people pushing their STUPID agendas nowadays!!! JUST STIFLE YOUR IGNORANT A$$ES!!!

  • beth6mike9

    IF the gun produced was a legal gun at the time of production; the manufacturer should NOT be liable in any way. After somebody else takes control of that weapon; the manufacturer has no control over it. If you jam a screwdriver through your leg; should you be able to sue the screwdriver company?

  • Brad Clapp

    The big issue is gun shooting are happening left and right and one side wants to do nothing about it and the other does. If shooting keeps happening more and more people will turn against guns and then gun owners who actually respect guns will lose them. A simple way to put it is wise gun owners need to step up and do something before guns are ruined for everyone.

  • St0rm Ranger

    Who cares? In what world will this pass under the current administration? We've gotta impeach Pelosi then Trump before anything like this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. It's all half assed, piss poor political theater.

  • Rain SilverSplash

    No one advertises their firearms as tools of murder, nor does the advertising glorify or facilitate any criminal action. Firearms are advertised as tools for self-defense, home defense, recreation, and hunting. Every firearms manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer that I know of clearly advocates for safe use and handling practices.
    I have encouraged my Senators and Representative to introduce an amendment to the the bill to cover ANY product, device, tool, or machine used to commit violence, to ensure that any victim can sue the maker of the product, device, tool, or machine used in ANY act of violence. If you are attacked with a hammer or screwdriver, you could sue the the tool maker. If you are stabbed with a knife, you could then sue the cultlery maker. If you are victim of a drunk driving accident, the car maker is subject to suit.

  • Peter Parker

    That's why I love the Democrats. They always come up with laws that will help the people, unlike those Republicans, who don't want to pass a gun law bill. Now, let me get shot and I survive. That would help me and my family. We need Gun control in America. No one in your neighborhood should have possession of a weapon that should only be in the Military. People are crazy. Just because someone smiles a lot and act kind, doesn't mean they're gentle. Hell, even the Joker smiles a lot. CrAzY people are insane.

  • Trident Nine

    I can't wait until I can sue Ford for accidents, it don't matter if they market it as a protester thumping machine

  • S R

    lets sue the parents who raised the vermin that do this sort of thing. Or maybe they don't have the kind of money they are looking for

Leave a Reply

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