Ever since President Joe Biden took office, he and his merry band of Democrats in Congress have been trying to concoct legislative schemes to impose more restrictions on gun ownership in America. Their efforts have not borne much fruit due to the makeup of Congress and the refusal of Republican lawmakers to sign on to the anti-gun agenda.
Still, Democrats are looking at other ways to make it harder for responsible Americans to keep and bear arms. This is where Illinois’ state legislature comes in.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Saturday signed a bill into law that would allow people to sue companies that manufacture firearms to hold them civilly liable for acts of gun violence:
The new move, the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, bans advertising or marketing that encourages paramilitary or unlawful private militia activity. It bans advertising firearms to people under 18 and limits the kinds of imagery that can be used in ads. And it allows people to sue manufacturers.
Pritzker said this law follows standards set in other industries.
“We hold opioid manufacturers accountable,” he said. “We hold vaping companies accountable. We hold predatory lenders accountable. Gun manufacturers shouldn’t get to hide from law, and now they won’t be able to.”
The new law sparked criticism from pro-Second Amendment organizations and praise from the anti-gunner lobby:
“It is really a bill to harass gun manufacturers,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association. “No gun manufacturer I know of would do anything like this, but it opens them up to frivolous lawsuits, which is designed to bankrupt them in one way or another.”
The state is ready to defend the new law in court.
“What this law does is clarify that the firearm industry, like any other business, must comply with the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
But regulations enforced in other industries might not apply to weapon manufacturing for one key reason.
“Those other products that you just mentioned aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. Prohibitions, that has always been the roadblock, the Second Amendment,” said [CBS 2 Legal Analyst Irv] Miller.
This act mirrors other efforts to target gun manufacturers. Over the past two years, the Mexican government has been allying with Democrats in a lawsuitagainst American gun companies to hold them liable for widespread and constant violence in Mexico:
“More than a dozen Republican attorneys general are defending American gun manufacturers against a lawsuit from Mexico that says the companies should be liable for gun violence south of the border, an argument that California and other Democrat-led states are supporting,” according to Fox News Digital.
The report continued:
Mexico’s lawsuit claims U.S. gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Ruger and others are liable for gun violence south of the border because they are aware that their firearms are being trafficked into the country.
Mexico’s lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in Massachusetts last year, but Mexico appealed its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the suit is supported by California and other Democrat-led states.
Democratic attorneys general in twelve states signed onto an amicus brief filed with the court encouraging it to rule in favor of the Mexican government. The anti-gunner lobby is so desperate to keep Americans unarmed that they are willing to partner with a foreign government to attack our Second Amendment rights.
People who favor using gun violence to attack manufacturers might argue that it would stop them from advertising firearms to minors. However, they have yet to show how these companies are actively trying to get minors to buy guns, so the comparison to tobacco and vaping companies does not seem to wash. Besides, it is far easier for a minor to buy cigarettes and vapes from gas stations than it is for them to purchase a firearm from a gun store.
Those arguing against this type of legislation would point out that it will only result in frivolous lawsuits that will cause financial problems for gun manufacturers. Moreover, it does not make sense to punish gun manufacturers for the actions of those who use their products. It would be like blaming a car manufacturer if someone uses a vehicle to run someone over.
Further, there is absolutely no indication that this legislation will save a single life. Blaming gun manufacturers for the actions of people who use their products won’t save anyone – especially since most gun violence is committed using guns that are obtained illegally. This is not an issue that gun companies can solve.
Let’s be clear about this. The anti-gunner lobby knows that these laws won’t protect anyone. Instead, the idea is to harm gun companies through the use of lawfare. By attacking their finances, they will force these companies to raise prices, which will make it more expensive for people to own firearms. This will disproportionately impact low-income Americans – especially blacks and Hispanics. These lawsuits could also harm small gun manufacturers who do not possess the resources necessary to fight these legal actions.
This is the plan. It has nothing to do with saving lives. Rather, it is about preventing people from arming themselves. Hopefully, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen will enable those favoring gun rights to get these laws struck down.