The 2023 Colorado Legislative Session has been filled with bloviating by progressive anti-gunners about the wave of new gun control laws threatening to decimate the Second Amendment in the Centennial State. Weapons bans, Red Flag expansion, increasing the age to purchase, waiting periods – you name it, the gun control lobby is writing a bill to try it in Colorado. While those laws directly impact the individual purchasing or possessing the firearm, there have been calls to go after gun manufacturers directly. Rumors are circulating that we will see a law proposing that gun manufacturers can be held liable for shootings using their products. They argue it is the manufacturers’ fault for advertising their weapons to kids or even making them available to civilians in the first place. In reality, it’s a thinly veiled attempt to remove “scary” guns from the market and keep them solely in the hands of responsible parties: law enforcement and the military. Let’s break down why manufacturer liability is so problematic.
First, let’s take a moment to thank Remington for opening the door to this wildly idiotic concept when they settled with the families of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2022. Mass shootings are always tragic and universally followed by overly emotional calls to curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans. The Sandy Hook shooting was no different. In the wake of the massacre, the families were not satisfied with blaming the mentally deranged individual that shot their children and sought to go after Remington for damages. They argued that Remington had marketed their weapon to killers like the shooter (whom I will never name) and should be held liable for the shooting. Rather than fighting the lawsuit until the bitter end, Remington decided to settle with the families for $73 million, opening the door to future lawsuits against other manufacturers. They could have been a champion for Second Amendment advocates; instead, they bent their knees to appease the mob.
Following this landmark decision to settle, the gun control community realized they would be able to put pressure on legislators to codify this practice into law. They hope that the threat of massive lawsuits will have a chilling effect on gun manufacturers, causing them to decide against manufacturing “weapons of war” for the civilian community. After all, if American history has taught us anything, the government is utterly infallible, with no history of committing atrocities against any groups based solely on skin color or ethnic status. So why would the people need weapons capable of fighting back?
Aside from being a blatant attempt at limiting the firearms available to law-abiding citizens, manufacturer liability is moronic. Imagine suggesting that Ford should be liable because someone misused their Focus and rear-ended you. It is not Ford’s fault that the driver was irresponsible and inappropriately used the car. Similarly, it is not Remington’s fault that a firearm they manufactured was improperly used. We do not sue Chevy because someone drove drunk and killed a family in a crash. However, it seems that the Democrats are suggesting we do precisely that to gun manufacturers. Manufacturers should not be held responsible, in any industry, for the misuse of their products. Otherwise, what will stop someone from suing a local farm because some hooligan egged their house? Would the families affected by the Oklahoma City Bombing be allowed to sue manure companies?
This concept reflects the Democrats’ innate desire to absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions. They choose to attack manufacturers, political commentators, video games, and anything else that directs attention away from the actual cause of most mass shootings: the contempt and scorn society promotes toward isolated young boys struggling to adapt to their role as men. Suppose they admit these shootings are the fault of individuals behaving monstrously. In that case, they will have to acknowledge that the vast majority of people will never behave similarly. Thus, many suggested gun control laws will be considered blatant tyrannical disarmament campaigns.
It is vitally important that we stop any attempt to introduce manufacturer’s liability. If it achieves the intended goal, we will see a significant reduction in rifles available for good people like us to purchase. Mass shootings are responsible for around .2% of gun deaths per year, yet they account for close to 100% of the gun control we encounter. They use the corpses of dead children to explain why we, the peasants, should allow our rights to be continuously restricted. Major players in the Democratic Party have even gone so far as to lie and say that gun manufacturers are the only industry protected from liability. Meanwhile, vaccine manufacturers are still protected from liability, yet the Democrats spent the last two years pushing those on the American public with no issue.
Remington is a major manufacturer, but many small businesses will go out of business at the mere whiff of a liability lawsuit. The Democrats’ strategy is to make exercising our Second Amendment rights as painful as possible. Allowing them to push manufacturer liability laws will only worsen things. These laws make no sense and open a can of worms that should terrify many other industries, such as automobile or hammer manufacturers. We must recognize these laws for what they are and do everything possible to stop the Democrats’ wildly anti-gun legislative agenda.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners will stand firm in opposing any such legislation.
