• Connecticut Bill Seeks to Punish Gun Makers for Crimes Committed by Oth

    From useapen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 06:17:36 2025
    XPost: ne.politics, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: sac.politics

    I remember the first time I heard about a lawsuit where someone was trying
    to punish a firearm manufacturer for someone being shot. I thought it was
    the most asinine thing I'd ever heard. Even if the company sold directly
    to the individual, unless they somehow committed an illegal sale, they
    weren't responsible for what happened in any way.

    Of course, this came up on Tuesday with Mexico v. Smith & Wesson being
    argued before the Supreme Court. The term is "proximate cause," where
    there should be a reasonable understanding that doing something will
    result in something else happening.

    Lawsuits like this led to the creation of the Protection of Lawful
    Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

    It seems Connecticut thinks they can circumvent that.

    Connecticut lawmakers have introduced House Bill 7042, a proposed law that could fundamentally change how firearm sales are regulated. The bill,
    titled the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, would allow civil lawsuits
    to be filed against gun dealers, manufacturers, and distributors if a
    firearm they sold is later used in a crime. While the bill is still in the early stages of legislative review, it has already sparked strong
    reactions from both gun rights advocates and legal analysts who see it as
    a direct attack on gun sellers and possibly an attempt to force gun shops
    out of business.

    The text of HB 7042 makes it clear that the law would apply not just to
    gun sellers but to anyone involved in firearm sales, distribution, or marketing. The bill’s language classifies firearm industry members as any person or business engaged in the sale or promotion of firearms,
    accessories, or ammunition. This means that not just licensed gun dealers (FFLs) would be affected, but also manufacturers, online retailers, and
    even potentially firearm-related content creators.

    According to Derek Reeves, host of Connecticut Gun Bench, the bill is
    written so broadly that it could be used to shut down nearly every gun
    shop in the state. Reeves argues that because the law would allow lawsuits
    if a gun dealer “should have reasonably foreseen” that a firearm might be
    used in a crime, it essentially makes FFLs responsible for the actions of criminals they’ve never met.

    Basically, HB 7042 means that a lawful gun dealer is responsible for
    everything that happens, the phrase "should have reasonably foreseen" notwithstanding. After all, as we saw in Mexico's arguments, some people
    think that any firearm sale should be treated as if one should reasonably foresee that the gun sold would be used in a criminal action.

    Further, this seeks to punish gun dealers for not making modifications impossible to the guns. In other words, if they sell a Glock and a
    criminal puts a full-auto switch on it, then the dealer is responsible for
    not making it where the gun can't be modified.

    Which, to anyone familiar with guns, is impossible. You can't do it. It's
    just a matter of how badly someone wants to modify the gun, and with how a full-auto switch on a Glock works, I don't see how you could prevent it
    from being modified at all. Even if you somehow secure the backplate on
    the slide, just replacing the slide renders that fix moot.

    Other guns fall into the same camp. How can you actually prevent them
    being modified in such a way that they still function? The short answer is
    that you can't, meaning every gun dealer in the state will be on the hook sooner or later.

    The bill also seeks to penalize literally anyone involved in the selling
    of a gun, including the marketing guys.

    This is a bill that is so egregious that words cannot adequately describe
    how bad it is. Especially since it seeks to try and undermine the PLCAA in
    and of itself.

    Yes, this is in the early days, and I sincerely hope Connecticut has
    enough sense not to go down this road, but this is Connecticut we're
    talking about here. They'll probably do this eventually, then they'll get
    sued and lose in court, but in the meantime, a lot of people may lose
    their livelihoods over things that were beyond their control.

    https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/03/05/connecticut-bill-seeks-to- punish-gun-makers-for-crimes-committed-by-others-n1227869

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lester Gruber@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 8 08:16:25 2025
    XPost: ne.politics, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 07 Mar 2025, useapen <yourdime@outlook.com> posted some news:XnsB29BE2C725BDDBX@135.181.20.170:

    I remember the first time I heard about a lawsuit where someone was
    trying to punish a firearm manufacturer for someone being shot. I
    thought it was the most asinine thing I'd ever heard. Even if the
    company sold directly to the individual, unless they somehow committed
    an illegal sale, they weren't responsible for what happened in any
    way.

    Of course, this came up on Tuesday with Mexico v. Smith & Wesson being
    argued before the Supreme Court. The term is "proximate cause," where
    there should be a reasonable understanding that doing something will
    result in something else happening.

    Lawsuits like this led to the creation of the Protection of Lawful
    Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

    It seems Connecticut thinks they can circumvent that.

    Connecticut lawmakers have introduced House Bill 7042, a proposed law
    that could fundamentally change how firearm sales are regulated. The
    bill, titled the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, would allow
    civil lawsuits to be filed against gun dealers, manufacturers, and distributors if a firearm they sold is later used in a crime. While
    the bill is still in the early stages of legislative review, it has
    already sparked strong reactions from both gun rights advocates and
    legal analysts who see it as a direct attack on gun sellers and
    possibly an attempt to force gun shops out of business.

    That's the plan. Connecticut is blue thru and thru.

    The text of HB 7042 makes it clear that the law would apply not just
    to gun sellers but to anyone involved in firearm sales, distribution,
    or marketing. The bill’s language classifies firearm industry members
    as any person or business engaged in the sale or promotion of
    firearms, accessories, or ammunition. This means that not just
    licensed gun dealers (FFLs) would be affected, but also manufacturers,
    online retailers, and even potentially firearm-related content
    creators.

    According to Derek Reeves, host of Connecticut Gun Bench, the bill is
    written so broadly that it could be used to shut down nearly every gun
    shop in the state. Reeves argues that because the law would allow
    lawsuits if a gun dealer “should have reasonably foreseen” that a
    firearm might be used in a crime, it essentially makes FFLs
    responsible for the actions of criminals they’ve never met.

    Basically, HB 7042 means that a lawful gun dealer is responsible for everything that happens, the phrase "should have reasonably foreseen" notwithstanding. After all, as we saw in Mexico's arguments, some
    people think that any firearm sale should be treated as if one should reasonably foresee that the gun sold would be used in a criminal
    action.

    Even if they ram it through, it will be unconstitutional.

    Further, this seeks to punish gun dealers for not making modifications impossible to the guns. In other words, if they sell a Glock and a
    criminal puts a full-auto switch on it, then the dealer is responsible
    for not making it where the gun can't be modified.

    Which, to anyone familiar with guns, is impossible. You can't do it.
    It's just a matter of how badly someone wants to modify the gun, and
    with how a full-auto switch on a Glock works, I don't see how you
    could prevent it from being modified at all. Even if you somehow
    secure the backplate on the slide, just replacing the slide renders
    that fix moot.

    Other guns fall into the same camp. How can you actually prevent them
    being modified in such a way that they still function? The short
    answer is that you can't, meaning every gun dealer in the state will
    be on the hook sooner or later.

    The bill also seeks to penalize literally anyone involved in the
    selling of a gun, including the marketing guys.

    Penalize Connecticut. Impose tariffs on gasoline and electricity.

    This is a bill that is so egregious that words cannot adequately
    describe how bad it is. Especially since it seeks to try and undermine
    the PLCAA in and of itself.

    Yes, this is in the early days, and I sincerely hope Connecticut has
    enough sense not to go down this road, but this is Connecticut we're
    talking about here. They'll probably do this eventually, then they'll
    get sued and lose in court, but in the meantime, a lot of people may
    lose their livelihoods over things that were beyond their control.

    https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/03/05/connecticut-bill-seeks-t
    o- punish-gun-makers-for-crimes-committed-by-others-n1227869


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)