Is the Gun to Blame?
By Larry King
There is an important legal case underway in the State of Connecticut. It revolves around the 2102 Sandy Hook School shooting that resulted in the death of 20 students and 6 staff members. A wrongful death law suit has been filed against the manufacturer of the weapon that was used in the shooting, The Bushmaster Company. The suit alleges that Bushmaster should have known that it was not appropriate to sell the AR-15, a military assault weapon, to the public. Further, it accuses the gun maker of choosing “to disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” The central point is this: the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment. This is different tact than has been taken in the past when legal action was targeted at the shooter.
Bushmaster attempted to have the suit tried in federal court. The reason is that a federal stature, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, gives the gun industry broad immunity. It essentially says that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for misuse of weapons used in the commission of a crime. A federal judge has ruled that the case has to be returned to state court. The trial is pending.
Legal actions and other matters of product liability have been leveled against industries in the past. Take tobacco for example. Since the 1990’s, tobacco has been the subject of lawsuits alleging that their product, cigarettes, was known by the manufacturers to be dangerous. Internal documents painting this picture were produced.
Are there any similarities that can be draw from the trial that is brewing in Connecticut? Perhaps, should a person who ingests smoke from a cigarette into his or her lungs suspect that inhaling a foreign gas might cause health problems? Should a person who drinks liquor be expected to comprehend the risks that this activity poses to his or her well being?
The decision as to whether or not a gun maker is responsible for this tragedy has far reaching implications. This will pique the interest of the pro-gun lobby. Those who oppose any restrictions on firearms or ammunition sense that losing a case like this will spell the end to their rights to own particular types of weapons.
So is there a connection to homeland security somewhere in this story? The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution is often cited when a case arises that has the potential to infringe on the public’s right to possess firearms. Does restricting the possession of certain weapons undermine a citizen’s ability defend him or herself and in the larger context weaken our national security? Let’s keep an eye on what happens in Connecticut. It may foretell what the future brings.
See other articles by HomelandXYZ…
- What Do You Do on an Average Day?
- The U.S. Drone Court: Are U.S. Citizens Constitutionally Protected From Targeted Drone Attacks?
- Body Cameras — Officer, Watch Your P’s and Q’s
- ISIS: Death by Chocolate
- The Autonomous Motor Vehicle — Friend or Foe?
- Another Day in the Life of a North Korean Leader
- North Korea in Space!?
