No Immunity for Gun Industry

The Senate will soon be voting on a bill passed by the House of Representatives that grants gun dealers, distributors and manufacturers immunity from almost all litigation. Denise Johnson, whose husband died last fall in the Washington-area sniper shootings and who is suing the store that supplied the rifle, told reporters, “I’m appalled and outraged that Congress can take away my rights as an American to have my day in court.” So are we.

Supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), this bill calls for unprecedented industry-wide immunity from lawsuits and threatens Americans’ constitutional right to sue. The gun industry has tried to construe the new legislation as a safeguard against gun-control activists; general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation Lawrence G. Keane argues that the legislation would “prevent frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits.”

But current law already guards against frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning lawyers who file them. And our civil justice system exists to distinguish “politically motivated” claims without merit from those where damages are in order. Judges exercising good discretion will dismiss frivolous suits when they arise.

While most gun rights issues are centered on the Second Amendment, this new legislation concerns the First and Seventh Amendments, which both give victims of gun violence the right to bring litigation against negligent gun dealers and manufacturers. The First Amendment states that Congress cannot remove a citizen’s right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” and the Seventh Amendment states, “In suits at common law… the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” Immunity for the gun industry is clearly unconstitutional. Congressional representatives supporting the legislation, in blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights, have prostituted themselves to corporate special interests and deserve condemnation from voters.

Keane also erroneously contends that lawsuits against the gun industry can “bankrupt responsible companies by blaming them for the actions of criminals.” But companies targeted in many legitimate suits, like the one brought by Denise Johnson, are anything but “responsible.” Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash., the gun store Johnson is suing, was unable to account for 238 guns in its inventory over the past three years, according to the federal firearms bureau.

Blanket immunity would also unfairly protect manufacturers who don’t meet safety criteria in the production of firearms, as well as dealers who let convicted felons purchase guns, knowingly allow accomplices to buy guns for criminals or fail to investigate bulk purchases. Immunity removes incentives for gun manufacturers and dealers to do business responsibly, and it therefore compromises the safety of American citizens. The gun industry—indeed any industry selling potentially dangerous products—has an extra responsibility to monitor its sales. The legislation now under consideration in the Senate strips gun dealers and manufacturers of this responsibility.

The rights guaranteed to Americans under the First and Seventh Amendments, and the danger that irresponsibility in the gun industry poses, are two undeniable reasons for the Senate to vote this legislation down when it gets the chance.