Republicans in Indiana’s legislature passed a bill this year intended as the final blow to a long-running lawsuit filed by the city of Gary against gun manufacturers seeking to hold them accountable for local illegal gun sales.
The lawmakers even included language making the bill retroactive to ensure that it would apply to the Gary suit, which was filed nearly a quarter century ago.
On Monday, that effort failed.
Indiana Superior Court Judge John Sedia ruled that while the law barring cities from pursuing lawsuits against the gun industry is constitutional, applying it retroactively would “violate years of vested rights and constitutional guarantees.” It was a rare courtroom setback for makers of firearms in the U.S.
Propublica - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Propublica:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.propublica.org/article/gary-indiana-lawsuit-guns-gunmakers-gop-glock-smith-wesson
At least the judge was sane.
There is a federally defined process by which firearms go from manufacturer to retailer to end user. A manufacturer cannot tell a retailer how or to whom a firearm can be sold, that’s done by the Federal Government. The fault for any illegal firearms transfer is with whoever last transferred the damn thing. So when Glock manufacturers a new pistol it’s then transferred (with lots of paperwork) to the retailer. The retailer then transfers (sells) again with paperwork, that Glock to the purchaser. If that end user then transfers (sells) that Glock to another end user neither the manufacturer nor the original retailer know anything about it or have any say in the transfer process.
So on what rational basis is a manufacturer responsible for the downstream actions of others, actions that they cannot control?
I think with these kinds of suits the core conceit is that gun manufacturing/sales is a sordid, immoral business along the lines of cigarettes, and that the very existence of a consumer market for their product implies their misuse and negative impact on society. Therefore, they should bear more responsibility for that impact.
They were emboldened by the suit against Bushmaster/Remington that succeeded and ultimately bankrupted Freedom Group.
