[marktwain]

The claim is that guns are dangerous by themselves, so manufacturers should be liable for the guns existence.

[Skywise]

What if the gang used a car?

Can we sue car manufacturers if I get intentionally run into by a car that was illegally sold? Obviously the manufacturer is culpable.

This lawsuit is frivolous on its face and should be summarily dismissed with prejudice and the Brady organization pay punitive fines.

[Yo-Yo]

The Law Liberty article link is interesting.

Here is the story. The gun manufacture Beemiller makes a line of relatively inexpensive guns under the brand Hi Point. Plaintiff was shot with a Hi Point pistol. As is typical in the industry, the manufacture sold that gun directly to a distributor. The distributor then sold the gun to a federally licensed retail dealer named Brown located in Ohio. Brown is alleged to have knowingly engaged in illegal straw sales to Nigel Bostic, who was prohibited from purchasing firearms. A straw purchaser (legally permitted to buy the guns) allegedly filled out the paper work and paid cash for guns selected by Bostic. In a series of straw transactions Bostic allegedly acquired more than 80 guns with the intent of selling them illegally back in New York. One of those guns was used in the shooting of Daniel Williams, a high school student in Buffalo, who was mistaken for a rival gang member.

Straight forward application of the PLCAA typically would preclude a suit against the manufacturer in a case like this. In the typical case there is an arm’s length business relationship between the gun maker, who sells to wholesale distributors, who in turn sell to retail dealers who sell to consumers in accordance with the instant background check and other requirments of the Gun Control Act. The point of the PLCAA was that a gun maker, in compliance with all of the laws for making and selling a firearm should not be sued when the gun is used in a way that breaks the law.

The novel thing in the Williams case is the complaint alleges the maker of Hi Point guns, sells only to a single exclusive distributor, MKS Supply. Nothing inherently worrisome so far. But here is thing. MKS Supply, allegedly is controlled by a man named Brown (currently the president of MKS supply says the Complaint). Mr. Brown is also the federally licensed firearms dealer who allegedly sold 87 guns to the straw purchaser, including the gun that was to shoot Daniel Williams.

So the question is, did Hi Point know that their exclusive distributor was making straw sales of their firearms? How would Hi Point, which would have sold thousands, if not tens of thousands of guns wholesale to MKS distributing, who would then sell them to licensed retailers, know that MKS was also dealing in low volume straw sales?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If someone kills someone else with his bare fists then sue the mother for manufacturing those fists.

[yoe]

Will the bow maker be responsible for the arrow finding its way into a neighbor's yard chair...that he happens to be sitting on.....or the skier who accidentally loses a ski on the ski slope and it travels alone and hurts or kills another skier, or the ladder or the jump rope or the hammer, or the swing......those arguments are pipe dreams of people who want to control people....good luck!

[gundog]

No gun manufacturer ever built a loaded gun.

[TigersEye]

The claim is that guns are dangerous by themselves,...

So are cars, circular saws, five gallon buckets, ...