A 2021 New York law allows gun manufacturers to be sued when their weapons are used in deadly shootings deemed to be a broad threat to public health in the state.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a New York law that sets out a legal pathway to hold gunmakers accountable for harm caused by their weapons.

The court’s decision not to intervene means the 2021 law remains in effect. It allows for various legal claims against gun manufacturers under state law, including alleged conduct that endangers the public health of New Yorkers.

The law, which was immediately challenged in court after being enacted, was written specifically to circumvent a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that created a liability shield for gunmakers.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 days ago

    How about including people who enabled shooters access to weapons into the responsibility? The private or commercial seller, the person who lent a weapon, the person who left a weapon unsecured in a place to be taken or stolen…

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      0·
      7 days ago

      Something something Second Amendment something something Gun’s Rights.

      But yeah. I still say the best approach is to actually let Responsible Gun Owners ™ have their guns. Hell, give them back machine guns for all I care.

      But if a gun is used in a crime?

      1. Who owns the firearm? How did the gun get out of their possession? Stolen but not noticed/reported? First off, they lose their firearms privileges for at least a decade. But also, massive financial penalties (percentage of wealth so that we aren’t discriminating since Gun Nuts totally care about inner city youths when you talk about taxes). No proper safe? All of the above AND jail time. And…
      2. Who sold that person the firearm? Did they perform their due diligence in terms of both a background check AND documented evidence of a proper gun safe and all required licensing for how the firearm was going to be used? Nope? Massive financial penalty AND a three strike rule. Three strikes and they are no longer allowed to sell or own firearms.
      3. And who sold that gun shop the firearm? That’s right. Colt and PSA and the like all that the same rules applied to them. Were they not doing their due diligence to make sure Herman’s Gun Shop was doing THEIR due diligence?

      Let the Responsible Gun Owners ™ have their gats. Just make sure those who can’t be responsible, don’t.

      • baahb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        7 days ago

        Perfection is the enemy of good, and this is a great example.

        Your point makes perfect sense, but depends I after the fact logic. The folks that want regulation on guns tend toward preventative measures and as a result seem to neglect alternative answers, meaning if the law doesn’t prevent gun violence to begin with its not getting passed.

          • baahb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            0·
            7 days ago

            Ain’t trying to convince shit. I’m complaining about the shitty american political process.

            Im allowed to complain and not have an answer. You got the means to make your idea work? No? Well then welcome to the boat, asshole.