Product Liability of Gun Manufacturers Law Research Paper It should be between 1200-1700 words with content that mirrors the content that was expected of t

Product Liability of Gun Manufacturers Law Research Paper It should be between 1200-1700 words with content that mirrors the content that was expected of the presentation (explaining the issue (product liability facing gun manufacturers), explaining stakeholder perspectives, analyzing two potential solutions, and recommending a solution to the problem). It should include APA citations throughout the document and contain a complete reference list in APA format. There should be at least 7 sources, at least three of which should be academic journal articles. Lastly, it should be written in a clear and professional manner, free of typos and other grammar issues. Powerpoint with references is attached The Liability of
Gun
Manufacturers
Kaitlynn Kelly, Rebecca Zitrin, Calli Votta,
Valentina Orostizaga, and Dante Montesinos
History
Gun law debates started to raise more concerns after the Columbine shooting
attack.
In 2005, George W. Bush established a law called the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act.
This law was passed due to numerous of lawsuits being filed against the gun
industry
These lawsuits claimed that gunmakers and sellers were engaging in negligent
marketing.
New York City and 30 other counties/cities joined the lawsuits that were suing the
gun manufacturers
Litigation
The case Adames v. Beretta involved a 13 year old boy removing the clip from his
father’s Beretta handgun and accidently shot his friend.
The victim’s family decided to sue Beretta, saying that Beretta could have made the
made the gun safer and provided could more warning signs.
The families of the Sandy Hook victims decided to sue the gun manufacturers and the
store’s owner.
The plaintiffs (Sandy Hook) had a frustrating trial when bringing a claim against
Bushmaster’s manufacturer.
(Kurtzleben, 2015).
Current Controversy
There has been controversy with AR-15 rifles being considered to be an assault
weapon (used in Parkland, Las Vegas, and etc.)
Since 1982-present, 74% of mass shooters bought their guns legally
(Dun & Melgar, 2018).
In late 2018, the Department of Justice announced the banned bump stocks due to the
definition of machine gun including bump stocks devices.
(Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2019).
–
–
–
Stakeholders: The Gun Industry and the
NRA
In 2013, President Obama supported reinstating the ban on assault
weapons after the Sandy Hook shooting. The NRA started a “Stop the
Gun Ban” campaign even before the bill was introduced. (Gerhart and
Alcantara, 2018, pg. 1).
“The Center for Responsive Politics, found that in 2016 more than half
of the members of the House of Representatives received money from
gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of
America. That money went disproportionately to Republicans. Only nine
Democrats received campaign contributions from these groups.” (Fisher,
Frostenson, and Mihalik, 2017, pg. 1).
The National Rifle Association spends more money to influence politics
than nearly every nonprofit group in the United States. (Sit, 2018).
The NRA pushed for the PLCAA and rejects that any gun manufacturers
should be held accountable for the actions of their users.
Stakeholders:Senators in Support of
Expanded Gun Manufacturer Liability
–
–
–
As previously stated, after the passage of the PCLAA in 2005, gun manufacturers have limited
liability in regards to what is done with their guns.
However, gun manufacturers can still be sued for making defective products.
There has been only one attempt to repeal the PCLAA.
In 2017, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, along with Representative Adam
Schiff introduced the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act.
The act would “ensure that that the victims of gun violence are allowed to have their day in
court and that the gun industry is not shielded from liability when it acts with negligence and
disregard for public safety.” (Blumenthal.senate.gov, 2017)
The Bill was read twice by the Senate and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
where it still sits today.
Stakeholders: Victims of Gun Violence
and Gun Control Advocacy Groups
–
–
–
Many lawsuits have been filed against gun manufacturers over the years. But after the PLCAA
was passed in 2005, it became very difficult to take legal action or hold the industry liable for gunrelated crimes.
In 2015, “the parents of a victim of a mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater sued
various internet retailers for negligence, negligent entrustment, and creating a public nuisance for
allegedly selling the shooter ammunition and other equipment used in his attack without
reasonable safeguards to prevent dangerous people from purchasing their wares.” (Giffords Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2019). This claim was rejected by the federal district court.
Due to difficulties and past failures of other cases, plaintiffs have been trying to find creative ways
to take legal action against firearm companies. An current example of this is that the families of the
Sandy Hook victims are suing Bushmaster for the marketing of the AR-15. (Hussey and Rojas,
2019).
Proposed Solution 1
? Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
? Exceptions to the PLCAA are made which still hold companies
liable for marketing methods leading to gun violence.
? The gun industry will no longer be immune to civil lawsuits
? Gives families of gun violence victims an avenue to seek justice
(Feldman, 2019).
Solution 1 Opposition and Support
?
?
Opposition
Gun manufacturers and
employees
Gun lobbyist
?
?
Support
Families of gun violence victims
Those in favor or stricter gun
regulations
Potential Negative and Positive
Impacts of Solution 1
?
?
?
?
Positive impacts
Holds gun manufacturers
accountable for their weapons
falling into the wrong hands.
Possible compensation for families
of gun violence victims.
Could change the way guns
would be advertised
Shines light on immoral practices
from gun manufacturers
?
?
?
Negative Impacts
Overwhelming amount of lawsuits
brought forth.
Possibly takes accountability
away from shooters
Would require lots of changes to
rules already put in place relating
to gun production and industry.
Acceptable Potential Negative
Consequences Policy 1
?
Interpretation of the Second Amendment
? “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
? During the 1700s, the various individuals involved in creating this legislation did
not think that automatic/ semi-automatic weapons would be created in the future.
? This change in legislation can cause a stricter regulation on the type of firearms an
individual of the State can purchase which would cause extreme uproar (banning of
AR 15)
(Van Alstyne, 1994).
Proposed Solution 2
? The PLCAA stays in place to protect companies but will be
submitted to scrutiny by the courts.
? The gun industry will continue to not be held liable for gun deaths.
? There are still exceptions to the PCLAA.
? Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA) would still be an
exception to the PCLAA. CUPTA holds companies accountable to
how their product is marketed.
? Manufacturing of guns will still be in question of more regulation.
? Families of victims still won’t be able to file lawsuits against gun
companies.
(Feldman, 2019).
Solution 2 Opposition and Support
Opposition
?
?
Families and supporters of
victims.
People in favor of gun
regulations.
Support
?
Gun Manufacturers
?
Gun lobbyists
?
Government Entities who benefit from gun
manufacturers interests.
(Kurtzleben, 2015).
Potential Negative and Positive
Impacts of Solution 2
Negative:
Positive
?
?
?
Gun companies won’t be
overwhelmed with large amounts of
lawsuits.
Gun companies economic flow will
not be affected.
Gunmen will be held accountable.
?
?
?
?
?
There would be no motion to
prevent gun violence and death.
Companies will not be held
accountable.
Gun related crimes will continue to
possibly increase.
No justice for victims or their
families.
No change in how dangerous
weapons are advertised and sold
(Kurtzleben, 2015).
Acceptable Potential Negative
Consequences Policy 2
?
Policy Solution 2-PLCA Act stays in place to protect companies
? There would be no tighter regulations to manage gun violence and gun related deaths.
? In 2012, private sale of firearms accounted for percent of all gun sales which includes at shows and
online. This means that more than six million gun sales had happened with no background checks.
(Webster,2013).
?
?
The “gun show loophole” is the law that does not require background checks for guns sold at shows by
private sellers.
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 that allows private sellers who sell lower than four firearms during a
year and this law was further extended to sellers who did not rely on gun sales for primary income
(Garrett,2019).
Recommended Solution/Preferable
Outcome: Solution 1
?
?
?
(2019) In the Sandy Hook v. Remington case, an exception to the PCLAA was used in regards
to a violation of CUPTA. This includes if state statute to the sale and marketing of firearms is
violated .
Violation of CUPTA was claimed by plaintiffs that gun manufacturers such as Remington
advertized the gun used in the shooting (Bushmaster rifle)as a weapon for criminal use.
If plaintiffs successful in their claim for improper marketing, this could open many doors in
regards to the advertising of gun products and also lead to government scrutiny of the PLCAA.
(Feldman, 2019).
Recommended Solution/Preferable
Outcome cont…
?
Repealing the PLCAA could result in other actions being
taken to prevent gun violence.
?
Gun manufacturers could be restricted on how they
advertise their products. Prohibiting marketing and
advertising of automatic weapons would cause their
production to become unprofitable.
(Feldman, 2019).
References
Alstyne, W. W. (1994). The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/683
Daniel, W., Vernick, J., McGinty, E., & Alcorn, T. (2013). John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Baltimore, MD: The John
Hopkins
Press.doi:https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ja7ry1qQfkoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP5&dq=gun+violence+in+america&ots=44wQqoq
FJx&sig=fcTf-H_jH2D0uGVfoeH6ntgelbM#v=onepage&q=gun%20violence%20in%20america&f=false
Dun, L. & Melgar L. (2018). Since 1982, 74 Percent of Mass Shooters Obtained Their Guns Legally. Guns & America. Retrieved
from https://gunsandamerica.org/story/18/11/02/since-1982-74-percent-of-mass-shooters-obtained-their-guns-legally/
Feldman, H. L. (2019). Why the lastest ruling in the sandy hook shooting litigation matters. Georgetown University Law Center,
Washington D.C.: Harvard Law Review. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3167&=&context=facpub&=&seiredir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%
25252C31%2526q%253DRemington%252Bv%252Bsandy%252Bhook%2526btnG%253D#search=%22Remington%2
Garrett, B. (2019, January 24). What is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist? Retrieved from
https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-show-laws-by-state-721345
Kramer M. & Harlan J. (2019). Parkland Shooting: Where Gun Control and School Safety Stand
Today. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/parklandshooting.html
Kurtzleben D. (2015). Are Gun-Makers Totally Free of Liability for their Behavior. National Public
Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-checkare-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior
Lindsay R. (2019). Lawsuit by Sandy Hook Victims Against Gun Manufacturer Allowed to Move Forward.
National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703439924/lawsuit-bysandy-hook-victims-against-gun-manufacturer-allowed-to-move-forward
References
Shechter, N. (2013). After Newtown: Reconsidering Kelley v. R.G. Industries and the Radical Idea of
Product-Category Liability for Manufacturers of Unreasonably Dangerous Firearms. Georgetown Law
Journal, 102, 552 – 577
Webster, D., Vernick, J. S., McGinty, E. E., & Alcorn, T. (2013). Regulating Gun Sales. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ja7ry1qQfkoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP5&dq=gun+violence+in+america&ots=44w
QqoqFJx&sig=fcTf-H_jH2D0uGVfoeH6ntgelbM#v=onepage&q=gun%20violence%20in%20america&f=false
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (2019). Bump Stocks. Retrieved from
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
Stakeholder Slide References
Blumenthal.senate.gov. (2017). Blumenthal, Murphy & Schiff Introduce Legislation to Give Gun Victims Their Day in Court and End
Gun Industry’s Liability Shield | Press Releases | United States Senator Richard Blumenthal. [online] Available at:
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-murphy-and-schiff-introduce-legislation-to-give-gun-victimstheir-day-in-court-and-end-gun-industrys-liability-shield
Gerhart, A., & Alcantara, C. (2018). How the NRA transformed from marksmen to lobbyists. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/gun-control-1968/?utm_term=.c170bbd9086e
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2019). Gun Industry Immunity | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [online] Available at:
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/
Fisher, T., Frostenson, T., & Mihalik, L. (2018). The gun lobby: See how much your representative gets. Retrieved from
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gun-lobbying-spending-in-america-congress/
Rojas, R., & Hussey, K. (2019). How Sandy Hook Families Hope to Pierce the Gun Industry’s Legal Shield. Retrieved from

Sit, R. (2018). Here’s why the NRA is so powerful and why gun control advocates have reason for hope. [online] Newsweek. Available at:
https://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-control-parkland-florida-school-shooting-campaign-donations-813940

Purchase answer to see full
attachment