Who is responsible for the truck attack in New Orleans on New Year's? That's right, the driver.
Now, who's responsible for a stabbing? Again, it's the guy with the knife.
In neither case would anyone think of blaming the car manufacturer or the knifemaker for these attacks. It's clear they had nothing to do with it. So why is it that anti-gun jihadists keep wanting to punish the gun industry for what third parties do, such as what a bill in Connecticut tries to do?
It's not even a case of punishing people for illegal sales, which would be one thing. Nope, they want to allow you to sue a gun maker for something they didn't actually do.
Connecticut may allow civil lawsuits against gun makers and dealers if a firearm they sold is used in a crime.
Local gun dealers opposed the bill during a Judiciary Committee public hearing on Wednesday.
Matthew Fleischer of Niantic, who owns a gun shop in Old Lyme, said he didn't understand why he should be held liable if a gun he sells after a state-required background check is used in a crime.
“For this law to hold me liable for something that somebody does with that gun after the state of Connecticut has checked, the government has checked, I don’t understand that process,” he told lawmakers.
Of course, Giffords thinks it won't have any impact on gun sellers in the state, which is beyond ridiculous. It may not be instantaneous, but in time, gun stores will be run out of business simply because a gun they sold ended up in the wrong hands.
Under federal law, the only way a licensed gun dealer can be punished for a sale is if they knowingly conduct a straw sale, where they have sufficient reason to believe the person buying the gun isn't the person whom the gun is for. While some people think that's easy to determine, it's not nearly as difficult to carry out a straw buy as some want you to think.
But this wouldn't matter. Every gun store in the state would run the risk of being sued because they sold a gun that ended up in a criminal's hands, even if it wasn't the result of a straw purchase.
People get guns stolen all the time, unfortunately. In fact, most guns used in violent crime are either stolen or purchased on the black market, which generally means stolen guns.
So if a dealer does everything right, how are they responsible?
Suing gun manufacturers would be even dumber. Most of them don't sell directly to gun stores, generally speaking. They sell to distributors who then sell to gun stores, who then sell to people. On the small percentage of sales that are "direct" to customers, they're really not direct. The manufacturer sends them to someone with a Federal Firearms License, or FFL. That person then conducts a NICS background check or state-mandated equivalent before transferring the gun to them.
In other words, at no point does a gun manufacturer to put a firearm directly into a customer's hand. How are they responsible?
And that's even if the original buyer is the person who ends up breaking the law, which isn't as common as many would like to believe.
So yeah, on every level, this is idiotic.
Then again, Connecticut elected Richard Blumenthal--a prime case of stolen valor--and Chris Murphy to the United States Senate. It's clear they can't really be trusted to make intelligent decisions.
