Connecticut: We Don’t Need No Law
BY Herschel Smith
2 weeks, 6 days ago
The gun industry could face civil damages for the misuse of firearms in limited circumstances in Connecticut under product liability legislation passed by the House and sent to the Senate on Wednesday.
Passage of House Bill 7042 came on a largely party-line vote of 100 to 46 in the House, where Democrats have a 102-49 majority. Five Democrats were opposed and five Republicans in favor.
Republican opponents decried the bill as unfairly holding gun makers and sellers responsible for the actions of purchasers, while the Democratic sponsor described it as a reasonable effort to make an industry be more attentive to public safety.
The state legislation follows a narrow path left open by a federal law that generally protects the gun industry from damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms or ammunition.
Exceptions to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act include cases where harms occurred after a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a law applicable to the sale or marketing of guns.
Nine states have passed similar laws, said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, the lead sponsor of the bill.
He said the same exception was used by families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School families to sue Remington over its marketing of the AR-15 style rifle used to kill 20 students and six educators in 2012. They agreed to a $73 million settlement in 2022.
The U.S. Supreme Court had refused to hear an appeal of a Connecticut’s court decision that allowed the families to pursue the case.
Yep, they invoked Sandy Hook as I figured they would. They got what they wanted. They bankrupted Remington and sent chills through the gun manufacturing industry (although Remington didn’t exactly help their case by producing crap). That there is such a thing as the protection of lawful commerce in firearms act doesn’t matter to legislators in Connecticut. Nor does it matter to the SCOTUS, apparently, who doesn’t care enough about the U.S. Congress to honor laws that have been made.
By the way, if you’re a gun manufacturer who still calls Connecticut home, I have one question. Why?
On May 1, 2025 at 6:21 am, Joe Blow said:
Welcome to TENNESSEE!!!!!
On May 1, 2025 at 12:25 pm, MTHead said:
This is a truly easy fix. Nothing gets sold to their state troopers or law enforcement in that state. No guns, ammo, or repairs. Nothing.
Manufacturers should also ask themselves what’s going to happen to them if the police use their products wrongly? Will the manufacturers have to pay for damages on lawsuits brought against the state’s illegal or wrongful use of firearms?
Wouldn’t that be convenient.
Move manufacturing to Idaho and give those states the middle finger.
Ask yourself what alcohol and car manufacturers would do? Or try it with the petroleum industry. See how it works out for them.
On May 1, 2025 at 9:22 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@MTN
Absolutely, could not agree more with your fix – hit ’em in the wallet, it is the only language they understand!
On May 3, 2025 at 2:55 am, Nosmo said:
“Nothing gets sold to their state troopers or law enforcement in that state. No guns, ammo, or repairs. Nothing.”
I’ll second the motion (all “accessories’ such as holsters, sights, etc. – anything that “facilitates the possible misuse of the product, whether deliberate or accidental, which may potentially increase the manufacturer’s liability beyond the manufacturer’s ability to control” – needs to be included).
Now, ‘splain how uniform agreement and participation can be obtained, and maintained, among every Tom, Dick and Sally in the firearms industry, and how Connecticut will be prevented from driving to another state to make purchases at retail. (assuming that such transactions are in full compliance with federal law and the laws of both states). And how getting an entire industry to participate in a sales blackout would not incur investigations and possible ramifications for conspiracy, and how Joe or Jane suing a, or all, manufacturer(s) for denial of civil rights would be dealt with – “your sales blackout denies me the opportuinity to obtain a self protection device,placing me at greater jeopardy” * remembering that Harmeet Dhillon, now the head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division has stated that “2nd Amendment issues are Civli Rights issues.”
Thing is, we would have to do the Complete Sales Blackout thing only once, because once demonstrated as effective it, probably, would not have to be used again.
* Which might not be a bad lawsuit to take all the way to the Supremes, because if gun manufacturers incur civil liabilty from citizens because of restricting sales to prevent potential catastrophic destruction as a result of action taken by a state government, what does that say about similarly restrictive anti-gun legislation from any other government agency in the United States?
On May 3, 2025 at 12:54 pm, MTHead said:
Nosmo;
Your right. Getting freedom people/businesses to do the right thing is always like trying to herd quail.
But if you’re liable for what gets mis-used in the that state. The only way to protect yourself in court is to be able to claim you sold nothing in or to that state. After the date of passage of their new law. (No “Ex post facto”.)
Including a stolen police gun that could be used in mass-murder.
I can’t imagine any other legal advice to be given. There state law only works in their state.
As for lawyers and the legal system. To this day NOT ONE lawyer as ever asked the SCOTUS for “redress of grievances”, for violations under “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Even though those violations are pushing a 100 years at this point. And the wording of the law is as plain and simple as it legally gets.
Communism and greed, and our reaction to them, are why we will get no justice in the courts of law.
Maybe our forefathers wrote the 2A as a line in the sand for us, as well as a legal avenue?