Families, Advocates Call for Stricter Policies on Gun Sale and Manufacture

The latest mass murders in Illinois and Texas have sparked yet another round of rallies against gun manufacturers and retailers. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the firearms industry, with many believing that accountability should begin with the retailers themselves.

To prevent massacres from occurring regularly in the country, the gun trade should be handled from the ground up.

Survivors of the July 4th mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, have filed an action against Smith & Wesson Brands.

The lawsuit was filed last week against the companies and other persons allegedly complicit in the attack, killing seven people and wounding 40 more. Meanwhile, survivors of the Uvalde, Texas, shooting have filed legal claims against the culprits.

During mass massacres, the gun business faces less liability under federal law.

While the cases will be complex due to the right granted by federal laws, many people, particularly victims, relatives, and advocacy groups, are optimistic that the frequent occurrences of mass shootings, albeit unfortunate events, will become a route for manufacturers and retailers to assume charge.

The cases are primarily motivated by the issue of the manufacturer’s sales and marketing strategies. Advocates argue that if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs’ request to put more robust requirements on manufacturers, the circumstances will impact how Americans access and purchase firearms.

Read Also: The Nobel Peace Prize will be Awarded Again, Experts Keep an Eye for Possible Recipient

The lawsuit and the plaintiffs

According to Eric Tirschwell, a firm director representing the complainants, one shooting suggested that the gunman had a collaborator in committing the crime.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs filed against Smith & Wesson Brands targeted the firm, claiming that the company’s marketing methods were dishonest and appealing “to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males.”

The plaintiff’s case also named the distributor who cleared the sale of the Smith & Wesson pistol used by the suspect to kill the victims. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, a jury trial and monetary damages will be ordered.

The victims of the Uvalde incident are prosecuting Daniel Defense, Firequest International Inc., and Oasis Outback for punitive damages. The accusations were filed in Texas’ Western District Court.

The complaint named not just the manufacturer and distributor of the firearms but also city, police enforcement, and school system officials. According to the statement, the officers’ flaws, both inside and outside the school, resulted in the deaths of 21 kids and instructors.

According to the lawsuit, the weapons maker sold the pistol to the shooter shortly after his 18th birthday. 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.”

When asked for the shooter’s response, the defendant in the Highland Park case pled not guilty, whereas the Uvalde shooter died.

Read Also: Netflix to Open New Gaming Studio, Aims to Strengthen its Mobile Gaming Arm

The case goes a long way

The PLCAA, or Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, heavily protects gun manufacturers against crimes committed by consumers who use its products. The statute, approved in 2005, protects gun manufacturers from liability for shooting offenses involving their firearms.

Jake Charles, a weapons law expert, predicted that the battle against gun makers and dealers would be protracted and tough as a result of PLCAA.

“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.