By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
Legislation that would allow victims of gun violence and affected communities to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers was reported by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
The three-bill package includes HB 6183 , HB 6184 and HB 6185 and would eliminate civil liability protections for members of the firearm industry and allow civil actions to be brought against them for failure to establish and implement reasonable controls. More than 20 years ago, Republicans enacted the law immunizing gun manufacturers from litigation to stop then Wayne County Prosecutor Mike Duggan from successfully suing the makers of firearms.
The committee also reported HB 6222 and HB 6223 , which would require firearm dealers to report individuals who are trying to purchase a weapon illegally, and HB 4198 , which would allow municipalities to ban open carry of firearms within buildings they own or rent.
All the bills were reported to the House floor without Republican support.
In 2005, a federal law, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, provided gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers with special protections from civil liability in federal court, but since 2021, nine states have enacted laws to hold gun manufacturers accountable in state court.
“What’s important her is that all attempts to strike down these laws through courts have proven to be unsuccessful, so these laws remain on the books,” Rep. Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton) said. “A gun industry member is not shielded from liability when their conduct violates state law. This law can help move the gun industry toward important safety innovations.”
Puri said that industry oversight has led to safety innovations in the automotive industry.
“The gun industry should not be held to a lesser standard than any other industry, particularly given the dangerous and deadly nature of their products,” Puri said. “We’re at a point right now that no one bill or idea can alleviate all of that … but this will just help ensure that bad actors in the gun industry can be held accountable for their actions going forward and giving justice to future victims.”
Kelly Sampson, senior counsel at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal law was not supposed to be a total immunity law.
“The Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act… has in many ways shut the courthouse doors to those who have been injured by irresponsible gun industry actions that would otherwise be actionable under ordinary civil justice principles,” she said. “Responsible gun industry actors have nothing to fear from this law, but gun industry members who irresponsibly, negligently or recklessly manufacture, sell or market firearms should be held accountable.”
Nick Buggia, the state director for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action testified in opposition to the bills.
“Supporters of this legislation say that firearms are the only product that have blanket immunity from liability. That is untrue,” he said. “If a firearm dealer, manufacturer, distributor, etc., could be sued every time an unaffiliated criminal uses of its guns unlawfully, you would no longer have a functioning gun industry in the United States.”
Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi), who chairs the committee, said that just because people could bring a lawsuit, that doesn’t mean they will win.
Rep. Andrew Fink (R-Hillsdale) said he thought the legislation was a violation of people’s constitutional rights.
“I can’t think of another piece of legislation that any member of this chamber, or any other legislature, would introduce, that would suggest that a manufacturer of a product which you have a constitutional right to use, you have a constitutional right to keep and own, that a manufacturer or it could be held liable for the proper function of it by a criminal… this would essentially be that same thing as being able to shut down a publication for someone’s speech,” he said. “If somebody commits a crime using a firearm, that person should be held responsible, but to hold a manufacturer responsible for the item they’re manufacturing working the way it’s intended to is essentially a shadow ban.”
HB 6222 and HB 6223 would align state prohibited gun owner laws with federal laws. The legislation makes additional offenses felonies and adds up to a $1,000 fine. There is also an added requirement that the gun seller notify local law enforcement within 24 hours if someone attempts to purchase a firearm, and they are already prohibited from making that purchase.
The committee also reported by 4198, which would allow municipalities to ban open carry in buildings they own or rent. Current law prohibits local governments from regulating firearms, reserving those regulations to the state.
The bill would remove the preemption for open carry, Rep. Carol Glanville (D-Walker) said.
“We are simply allowing cities, if they so choose, to create an ordinance that limits open carry in government buildings,” she said. “The last few years, the need for the protections withing the buildings, in terms of having not only police officers in uniform, but also out of uniform, to witness meetings. The level of threat and violence has gone up in our city meetings, and so we have to expend significant resources to keep those folks protected.”
Gongwer News Service
Legislation that would allow victims of gun violence and affected communities to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers was reported by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
The three-bill package includes HB 6183 , HB 6184 and HB 6185 and would eliminate civil liability protections for members of the firearm industry and allow civil actions to be brought against them for failure to establish and implement reasonable controls. More than 20 years ago, Republicans enacted the law immunizing gun manufacturers from litigation to stop then Wayne County Prosecutor Mike Duggan from successfully suing the makers of firearms.
The committee also reported HB 6222 and HB 6223 , which would require firearm dealers to report individuals who are trying to purchase a weapon illegally, and HB 4198 , which would allow municipalities to ban open carry of firearms within buildings they own or rent.
All the bills were reported to the House floor without Republican support.
In 2005, a federal law, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, provided gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers with special protections from civil liability in federal court, but since 2021, nine states have enacted laws to hold gun manufacturers accountable in state court.
“What’s important her is that all attempts to strike down these laws through courts have proven to be unsuccessful, so these laws remain on the books,” Rep. Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton) said. “A gun industry member is not shielded from liability when their conduct violates state law. This law can help move the gun industry toward important safety innovations.”
Puri said that industry oversight has led to safety innovations in the automotive industry.
“The gun industry should not be held to a lesser standard than any other industry, particularly given the dangerous and deadly nature of their products,” Puri said. “We’re at a point right now that no one bill or idea can alleviate all of that … but this will just help ensure that bad actors in the gun industry can be held accountable for their actions going forward and giving justice to future victims.”
Kelly Sampson, senior counsel at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal law was not supposed to be a total immunity law.
“The Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act… has in many ways shut the courthouse doors to those who have been injured by irresponsible gun industry actions that would otherwise be actionable under ordinary civil justice principles,” she said. “Responsible gun industry actors have nothing to fear from this law, but gun industry members who irresponsibly, negligently or recklessly manufacture, sell or market firearms should be held accountable.”
Nick Buggia, the state director for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action testified in opposition to the bills.
“Supporters of this legislation say that firearms are the only product that have blanket immunity from liability. That is untrue,” he said. “If a firearm dealer, manufacturer, distributor, etc., could be sued every time an unaffiliated criminal uses of its guns unlawfully, you would no longer have a functioning gun industry in the United States.”
Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi), who chairs the committee, said that just because people could bring a lawsuit, that doesn’t mean they will win.
Rep. Andrew Fink (R-Hillsdale) said he thought the legislation was a violation of people’s constitutional rights.
“I can’t think of another piece of legislation that any member of this chamber, or any other legislature, would introduce, that would suggest that a manufacturer of a product which you have a constitutional right to use, you have a constitutional right to keep and own, that a manufacturer or it could be held liable for the proper function of it by a criminal… this would essentially be that same thing as being able to shut down a publication for someone’s speech,” he said. “If somebody commits a crime using a firearm, that person should be held responsible, but to hold a manufacturer responsible for the item they’re manufacturing working the way it’s intended to is essentially a shadow ban.”
HB 6222 and HB 6223 would align state prohibited gun owner laws with federal laws. The legislation makes additional offenses felonies and adds up to a $1,000 fine. There is also an added requirement that the gun seller notify local law enforcement within 24 hours if someone attempts to purchase a firearm, and they are already prohibited from making that purchase.
The committee also reported by 4198, which would allow municipalities to ban open carry in buildings they own or rent. Current law prohibits local governments from regulating firearms, reserving those regulations to the state.
The bill would remove the preemption for open carry, Rep. Carol Glanville (D-Walker) said.
“We are simply allowing cities, if they so choose, to create an ordinance that limits open carry in government buildings,” she said. “The last few years, the need for the protections withing the buildings, in terms of having not only police officers in uniform, but also out of uniform, to witness meetings. The level of threat and violence has gone up in our city meetings, and so we have to expend significant resources to keep those folks protected.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
