lawsuit immunity

There is a bill currently in the US Congres that would make the gun industry immnue to lawsuits. Immune! The NRA is making this their prime legislative lobby this year. Already, unless there is some significant action by the Democrats, it will pass, because there are 52 co-signers on the bill.

Now I have to admit, I don’t see the point of owning a gun, at all, unless you hunt your food. But that’s a whole side issue that I don’t want to get into.

Lawrence G. Keane, the general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry trade association, said the legislation was needed to “prevent frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits” that may “bankrupt responsible companies by blaming them for the actions of criminals.”

These seems a fairly spurious argument, particularly in the overly litigacious society of the US. Notably, they would become the first industry to have immunity to lawsuits. The standard argument in including a gun manufacturer, I would assume, is to hold them liable for not performing due dilligence on their reseller, who in turn, had to do something illegal for them to be included in the suit. I doubt any judge in the US would allow a suit to go forth against a gun manufacturer if the firearm used to harm someone was perfectly legally obtained. So then this begs the question, how is this any different than a malpractice suit against a doctor? Or a class-action suit against a company that produced faulty equipment that caused the death of someone? The gun manufacturer should be held liable if they do not uphold the minimum screening standards set out by the industry (and I’m assuming that there are reseller screening standards).

The US’ obsession with and glorification of guns continues to astound & frighten me.