Tag Archives: gun manufacturers

Common Sense And Protecting The Second Amendment

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, at a House Oversight Committee hearing, the Democrats continued their assault The Second Amendment. On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about those hearings.

The article reports:

Smith & Wesson president and CEO Mark Smith released a statement Monday pushing back against House Democrats, noting that “a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home.”

Smith’s statement comes just weeks after Daniel Defense CEO Marty Daniel and Sturm, Ruger, and Co. CEO Christopher Killoy testified before a House Oversight Committee hearing as Democrats criticized firearm makers’ marketing tactics and profits.

Highlights of the hearing included Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) asking Ruger to agree not to sell certain types of ammunition, to which Ruger CEO Killoy responded, “We do not sell ammunition.”

At another point in the hearing, Committee chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) claimed gun manufacturers “sell the weapons of choice to mass murderers.”

But Breitbart News pointed out that gun manufacturers do not sell guns to individuals,  They sell guns to wholesalers and distributors, who, in turn, sell them to federally licensed dealers, who, in turn, sell them to citizens who pass a federal background check.

Mass murderers are not limited in their choice of weapons. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. Are we going to ban the purchase of fertilizer?

The article includes a statement by the CEO of Smith & Wesson, Mark Smith:

Smith & Wesson declined the invite to testify before the committee.

However, company CEO Smith released a statement Monday that “politicians and their lobbying partners in the media” have criticized Smith & Wesson for years.

Smith then alluded to Democrats’ anti-police policies, saying, “Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies.”

The article concludes:

Smith then pointed out that guns do not commit crimes, rather, people do: “To be clear, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never assaulted a woman out for a late-night run in the city, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never carjacked an unsuspecting driver stopped at a traffic light.”

The problem isn’t the guns.

Can My Pencil Be Held Responsible For Failing A Math Test?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Western Journal reported that New York Governor Cuomo has signed into law a measure that allows guns to be considered a public nuisance and opens the floodgates for lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun violence makes about as much sense as holding car manufacturers responsible for drunk driving.

The article reports:

“The only industry in the United States of America immune from lawsuits are the gun manufacturers, but we will not stand for that any longer, Cuomo said in a news release.

According to NBC News, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 carved out immunity for gun manufacturers if individuals misuse their products in a criminal manner.

Governor Cuomo issued a press release about the bill:

…“Under this new legislation, gun manufacturers cannot endanger the safety and health of the public through the sale, manufacturing, importing or marketing of the products they sell. The products can be considered a public nuisance even if the gun manufacturer did not purposely cause harm to the public,” the release said.

The release explained that anyone, from members of the public to corporations to the state attorney general, can now fire away at “bad actor gun manufacturers.”

Cuomo’s release said federal protection of the firearms sector “has created a perfect storm of lax controls and inability to hold bad actors to account.”

This is beyond ridiculous. The problem is not the guns–the problem is criminals. Suing every gun manufacturer you can think of won’t do any good as long as your no-bail laws keep letting criminals out of jail to commit more crimes.

Bad Ideas On Gun Control

Posted on by

On March 1st, The Heritage Foundation posted an article about the debate on gun control. The article lists four faulty ideas currently being discussed. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The four ideas:

1) Banning ‘Assault Weapons’

2) Banning ‘High-Capacity Magazines’

3) Background Checks On All Gun Sales

4) Eliminating Immunity for Gun Manufacturers

Even if they were to pass constitutional muster, none of these are good ideas.

In 2004, the Updated Assessment of the Federal AssaultWeapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 was released. The purpose of this report was to study the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban that Congress had passed in 1994.

The article at Heritage notes the conclusions of that study:

Even assuming that every criminal turned in his or her “assault weapon” and never obtained a different type of firearm to commit the same crimes in the future, there would be likely be no noticeable drop in gun-related crime as a result of this policy.

That is, in fact, exactly what the official study of the original federal assault-weapons ban found in 2004.

The article notes the current liability laws regarding gun manufacturers:

It’s important first to understand what the law currently is with respect to gun manufacturers and immunity.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers (as well as sellers and distributors) are still liable for selling defective products, for failing to abide by numerous federal regulations regarding safety, sales, and records, for false advertising, and for a wide array of other widely recognized tort claims.

The law only protects them from lawsuits claiming that they are liable whenever a third party criminally misuses a firearm that the company manufactured and sold in compliance with the law.

To hold a manufacturer liable for the misuse of their product is ridiculous. Are the manufacturers protected if they put a warning label on their guns that says “Not intended to be used to shoot people”?

The Founding Fathers put The Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights for a reason. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of government. The Second Amendment is part of that limitation–it is intended to limit the power of government–not the power of the people. Losing our Second Amendment rights would be a huge step toward government tyranny.

.