…
Recent mass shootings in Texas and Illinois have sparked new movements against gun retailers and makers.
Numerous lawsuits have been brought against the firearms business because many believe that retailers should be made liable. To stop mass shootings from happening routinely, the gun trade must be tackled at the root.
The victims of the July 4th mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, have filed a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson Brands. The lawsuit was launched last week against the merchants and other parties who were allegedly responsible for the attack, which resulted in the deaths of seven persons and the injuries of forty others.
While this was happening, the victims of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, filed lawsuits against the perpetrators.
Federal law imposes less responsibility on the firearms business after mass shootings. Many people, most particularly the survivors, family members, and activists, are hopeful that the frequent occurrences of gun violence, albeit upsetting events, will become an avenue to have retailers and manufacturers take accountability.
However, the cases will be intricate as the right granted by federal laws, and this will make them difficult to resolve.
The issue of the manufacturer’s marketing and sales tactics is the primary motivator of the lawsuits. According to proponents, the circumstances might alter how Americans access and buy firearms if the court approves the plaintiffs’ plea for a trial on the merits of imposing tougher regulations on manufacturers.
Read Also: Bed Bath & Beyond Struggles to Stay Afloat Amid a Myriad of Financial Hurdles
The lawsuits’ plaintiffs
An attorney for the complainants, Eric Tirschwell, said that one shooting proved the gunman had a partner in the crime. Additionally, Smith & Wesson Brands was assailed by the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the firm, who said that the company’s marketing tactics were misleading and appealing “to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males.”
The Smith & Wesson distributor who authorized the sale of the suspect’s gun—the one he used to fire the victims—was also named in the plaintiff’s case. A jury trial will be held, and monetary damages will be awarded if the plaintiffs are found to have a valid case.
For their part, Daniel Defense, Firequest International Inc., and Oasis Outback are being pursued by the victims of the incident in Uvalde. In Texas’ Western District Court, the accusations were filed.
More than only the gun manufacturer and distributor were named in the case; the law enforcement, city, and school system representatives were also implicated. The brief asserts that the deaths of 21 kids and instructors were caused in part by the errors and flaws made by the officers both within and outside the school.
According to the lawsuit, the gunman purchased the rifle from the weapons manufacturer immediately following the celebration of his 18th birthday. This was “reckless, deliberate, intentional, and needlessly endanger American children.”
“This is a company that chooses to stay ignorant of the harm they cause communities like Uvalde so they can continue to recklessly market their products and make millions.”
In the Highland Park case, the shooter refused to answer questions and pleaded not guilty, while the Uvalde gunman died recently.
Read Also: Global Sales of Electric Vehicle Surges, Bound to Reach an All-Time High
Long way to go
Under federal law, particularly the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, gun manufacturers are well-protected from crimes perpetrated by their users. The statute, which was enacted in 2005, protects gun manufacturers from being made liable for shooting offenses involving their weapons.
Jake Charles, an expert on weapons law, said that the PLCAA would make it more difficult and time consuming to take on gun makers and retailers.
“PLCAA is quite clearly the biggest boon to manufacturers and dealers in cases like these. It’s a strong shield against many types of claims arising from gun misuse,” he said.
Opinions expressed by Texas Today contributors are their own.
