Hillary and the Gun Makers

Back in October, the soon-to-be-indicted-we-hope presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made a big announcement of a package of gun control legislation she would press if the USA were stupid enough to make her president someday.

That included a provision that would, by repealing existing Federal legislation, allow the manufacturers of firearms to be liable, in court, for the willful misuse by purchasers of the products they manufacture.  In other words, victims of firearms violence would be allowed to sue the manufacturer of the weapon used by the criminal.

Now, we should point out that there is also case law in the courts, in the form of Adames v. Beretta, under which a Federal court found the manufacturer not liable for damages in the situation where the complaining party suffered injuries by being shot with one of Beretta's firearms.  The lower court ruling was appealed, but the Supreme Court declined to take up the case and let the lower court ruling stand.

We also have Federal law, which can be misinterpreted as a blanket protection for gun manufacturers but is actually not -- in fact, they cannot be sued for damages from misuse of a properly-functioning product without defect that contributed to the incident.  If the weapon is defective and someone is injured, there is no protection from liability in such case.

I think that seems perfectly reasonable to me.  There is a legitimate use for firearms -- self-defense, target-shooting, hunting -- not to mention that pesky Second Amendment right to own them.  As long as there is a legitimate use, there is a right to manufacture.  And as long as the manufacture is free of defect, it is a reasonable inference to hold the maker harmless for the use of the product.

Writing this reminded me not only of some weird misalignment of law regarding comparable situations, but also that I had written to this topic a long time ago.  It was not about firearms, but about holding drug companies harmless for the side effects of pharmaceuticals that had effectively passed FDA muster as being safe and effective.

Yes, kiddies, Federal law properly protects gun manufacturers from being sued if some person uses one of their properly-made weapons to hurt someone.  But drug makers do not get such protection even though their products have been approved by the Federal agency (the FDA) charged with such approvals.  Some unexpected side effect materializes and suddenly there are lawsuits.  And torts.  And legal fees go skyrocketing and drug prices rise with them.

But back to Hillary, of course.  Needless to say, she is just out there pandering for votes because she has no real platform or record of accomplishment to run on.  So she needs to do the "find a villain" thing and make the enemy of my enemy my friend (or voter), i.e., "vote for me because we both hate gun makers."

However -- guns are far from the only products out there wielded by someone that hurts another person during normal legal use.  If I go to a bar, get served too much Jack Daniel's by the bartender, walk out to my Chevy and run over a lawyer accidentally, then where do the ambulance-chasers go?  To Jack Daniel's for making a product that I abused by drinking too much?  To the bartender for serving me too much liquor? To the bar for hiring someone who was capable of over-serving a customer?  To Chevrolet for making a car that could be driven by someone with too much alcohol in him?  To no one because, well, it was a lawyer that got run over?

I think you get the idea.  There needs to be a legal standard for liability for the maker of a legally manufactured product that is free of defects, and that standard needs to apply in a legally standard manner.  That means that no matter what Hillary Clinton thinks, firearms manufacturers are no more liable for the misuse of their products than auto makers are, nor distillers.

Bars -- not quite so much, as they are the dispensers of that properly-manufactured product and have a legal obligation to do that dispensing consistent with the public good.  And cigarette makers have the peculiar situation of having been already shown to have made a product that is innately harmful when used as manufactured, serves no productive use, whose manufacturers have been found to have willfully misled the public and hidden the damaging effects for decades, and is therefore regulated separately.

Hillary is not going to win this one.  With any luck, she'll be in prison before even getting to try to fight the battle.  But I do hope that the outcome is one where there is a logical and legal consistency applied across the board (excepting tobacco as mentioned).  The risk of manufacturers' liability creeping in to properly-made firearms and then applying as a standard to other products -- like Chevrolets -- is far too great.  There is no additional need to make trial lawyers even richer.

Drugs, cars -- and firearms -- defect-free manufacture needs to afford legal protection.


Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.