Strict Liability for Gun Manufacturers

October 2, 2015




In order to eliminate the political hurdles of personal protection and the Second Amendment, Strict Liability will simply impose liability on the gun manufacturer whose gun causes the damage.

Strict Liability would involve the following:

  1. Every death or injury by gun would be compensated.
  2. Payment would be made to all those directly affected by the violence of the gun.
  3. Where the gun manufacturer is identified, then the payment would be made by that gun manufacturer.
  4. In those deaths or injuries where the gun manufacturer is not identified, compensation would be paid by a fund supplied by a general tax on ALL gun manufacturers.
  5. The victims would be guaranteed a trial by jury in the community where the injury or fatality occurs.
  6. The only issue before the jury would be the amount of damages.

Once the bill is introduced, hearings could be held to establish:

  1. The number of mass killings in the last decade and the guns utilized.
  2. The nature of the propaganda utilized by the gun manufacturer.
    1. The demographic would have to be pinpointed.
    2. The amount of money utilized for the propaganda.
  3. The fact is that most successful suicides occur with guns as compared to any other method, further factual development would be necessary.
  4. The impact on communities where gun deaths occur.
    1. Emotional impact on the communities.
    2. The economic impact on the communities.
  5. The methodology of gun manufacturers to disseminate their guns.

Both the statutory proposal and the hearing would be able to neutralize the propaganda that pushes personal protection and the Second Amendment.

Statement in support of the Proposal for Strict Liability

This proposal is founded on the political effect of the series of mass murders in 2012 culminating in the Newtown killings, so shocking that it penetrated mass consciousness, neutralizing the propaganda machine of the gun companies.  The gun manufacturers have successfully argued personal protection and the Second Amendment.  Strict Liability neutralizes those arguments because it does not require gun control, which would of necessity be compromised to assault weapons.  It also does not prevent individuals using guns for personal protection if they deemed it necessary.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Strict Liability as follow:

Strict Liability:  A concept applied by the courts in product liability cases in which a seller is liable for any and all defective or hazardous products which unduly threaten a consumer’s personal safety.  This concept applies to all members involved in the manufacturing and selling of any facet of the product.  Doctrine of “strict liability” poses strict liability on one who sells product in defective condition unreasonably dangerous to user or consumer for harm caused to ultimate user or consumer if seller is engaged in business of selling such product, and product is expected to and does reach user or consumer without substantial change in condition in which it is sold.  Davis  v.  Gibson Products Co., Tex.Civ.App., 505 S.W.2d 682, 688.

In the case of gun manufacturers, the question is not whether the product is defective but whether it is deadly.  A gun is designed for one purpose:  TO KILL.  It can be used for sport but it is designed to kill; that is the only purpose of the gun design.

The gun manufacturers, as every corporate entity, are governed by the necessity for immediate and maximum profit.  Therefore, the bigger the market assumes the greater the profit.  Sadly, in the quiet of the gun manufacturers’ board rooms, they celebrate when mass murders occur because gun sales go up.  The gun manufacturers then put in place plans of propaganda to blunt moves for control as public outrage subsides.  However, there are constant new mass murders.  Once the public outrage subsides, the standard arguments of protection and Second Amendment are put in place.

Because of mass murders, individuals turn to guns for protection based upon the propaganda of the gun manufacturers.  The gun manufacturers contend that everyone being armed would protect them from mass murder.  Hearings could be held to element that myth.

In fact, the gun manufacturers utilize a massive propaganda machine to promote guns and their ownership.  In doing so, they indirectly create a culture of violence, painting huge sections of population as either psychopathic killers or mentally ill.  Having created that culture, they then propose guns as the remedy; that is guns for protection.  In other words, the mentality becomes violence against violence.  There is no concept of de-escalation.

The importance of Strict Liability is that it eliminates protection and Second Amendment issues.  Strict Liability simply states that putting dangerous weapons on the market means that profit would be made after the damage is compensated.  In other words, there is no limit on the number of guns that the manufacturers can put into the market but there is limit on the profit that can be made because the guns caused so much damage.  We would not be faced with the problem of the gun shows and the gun show loop holes.  They would be able to promote their guns in any way they want to but they have to pay for ALL of the damage that occurs because of that promotion.

The other benefit of this bill is that it would eliminate the problem of regulation.  We have seen over the past thirty years that governmental regulation is neutralized because the corporations being regulated capture the government agency.  Therefore, they provide jobs to the individual regulators and they eliminate the danger of governmental regulation.  In fact, one of the problems that gun control advocates face is that regulation is so ineffective.

However, Strict Liability would not be ineffective.  Requiring the gun manufacturers to go before local juries where the damage occurred would certainly place money damages on them and the regulation or gun control would be carried out by the gun manufacturer themselves.

Probably the most important political effect would be the introduction of the proposed statute itself.  It would change the dialogue relative to guns in our society.  It would place on the gun manufacturers the necessity to deal with safety, to deal with the psychological questions surrounding the use of guns, and to deal with the dissemination of guns.  It would not be the responsibility of the government to either control or ban particular guns.  In that debate, the gun manufacturers win.


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply