I'm fine with that... as long as you tack on the perfectly sensible condition....that all companies who manufacture ANYTHING can also be sued if someone is directly or indirectly killed with or by their product. That goes for all wines and liquors, beer, planes, trains and automobiles, trucks, kitchen knives, electric razors, lawn mowers, rope, twine, ANYTHING. Let's all be on the same playing field if we're gonna play. The only ones to benefit from these suits are the scumbag lawyers, of which we already have too many.
There is already a law protecting them against such suits. These people just will not stop at anything. I feel like Anti-gun orgs need to be sued on civil rights violations. They are actively trying to take away your civil rights. So tired of being on the defensive. We should be on the offensive.
The way they write at the end of their article makes me want to smack the shit out of them and every dumbass who believes that following the law can somehow equate to civil liability for gun dealers.
Short of a guy walking into a gun store or gun show, going to the dealer and saying "I'm going to buy this gun to (insert crime of choice)" how are are dealers supposed to know that they should not have sold him that gun? The only thing that might stop that is if he's in NICS. And we all know that NICS ain't exactly fool-proof.
None of this is to establish actual civil liability. It is simply a push to restore their prior tactic of malicious lawsuits designed simply to put gun dealers out of business via excessive court/lawyer fees.
None of this is to establish actual civil liability. It is simply a push to restore their prior tactic of malicious lawsuits designed simply to put gun dealers out of business via excessive court/lawyer fees.