Another round of demonstrations against gun manufacturers and retailers has been sparked by the recent mass shootings in Illinois and Texas.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the firearms business because many people believe that the retailers themselves should bear some of the blame.
To stop mass shootings from happening regularly in the nation, the gun trade must be tackled from the ground up.
The victims of the July 4 mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, are suing Smith & Wesson Brands. The lawsuit was brought last week against the merchants and other persons who were allegedly involved in the attack, which resulted in seven people’s deaths and forty others’ injuries.
The victims of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, have also filed lawsuits against the shooters.
Federal law places less responsibility on the gun industry after big massacres. However, many people, most notably the survivors, families, and advocates, are cautiously optimistic that the prevalent type of mass shootings, although unfortunate events, becomes an opportunity to have manufacturers and retailers take responsibility.
The cases will be complex as the right granted by federal laws, but many people, especially the survivors, families, and advocates, are hopeful.
The issue of the manufacturer’s sales and marketing strategies is the primary motivating factor in the disputes. Advocates claim that the conditions might alter how Americans access and buy firearms if the court granted the plaintiffs’ request to put harsher regulations on manufacturers.
A corporate director representing the complainants, Eric Tirschwell, said that one shooting demonstrated the presence of a co-conspirator in carrying out the crime.
In addition, the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson Brands criticized the business and said its marketing tactics were misleading and appealing “to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males.”
The distributor that authorized the sale of the Smith & Wesson firearm used by the suspect to shoot the bystanders was also named in the plaintiff’s case. If the plaintiffs are successful, the court will order a jury trial and monetary damages.
The victims of the Uvalde incident are suing Daniel Defense, Firequest International Inc., and Oasis Outback for punitive damages. The Western District Court in Texas received the accusations.
Along with the gun manufacturer and distributor, the municipal, police enforcement, and school district authorities were also named in the case. The brief claims that 21 children and instructors died as a result of the flaws and mistakes made by the authorities both inside and outside the school.
According to the lawsuit, the gunman purchased the rifle from the weapons manufacturer shortly after becoming 18 years old. This was “reckless, deliberate, intentional, and needlessly endanger American children.”
“This is a company that chooses to stay ignorant of the harm they cause communities like Uvalde so they can continue to recklessly market their products and make millions.”
While the Uvalde shooter is deceased, the shooter in the Highland Park case entered a not guilty plea when asked to respond.
A long fight
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, is largely shielded from criminal activity by consumers who use its products under federal law. The 2005 statute exempts gun manufacturers from being held accountable for shooting offenses involving their firearms.
Jake Charles, a professor of weapons law, predicted that the PLCAA would make it more difficult and time-consuming to take on distributors and manufacturers of firearms.
“PLCAA is quite clearly the biggest boon to manufacturers and dealers in cases like these. It’s a strong shield against many types of claims arising from gun misuse,” he said.
Photo Credit: CGTN
Opinions expressed by US Insider contributors are their own.