On Thursday, President Joe Biden (D) issued a repeat of his call to ban so-called “assault weapons.” He even reached into his bag of tricks and dug up the thoroughly debunked claim that gun manufacturers are given blanket immunity from liability.
Biden backed up this falsehood by further asserting that it is the only American industry to enjoy these legal protections. This is patently false.
Vaccine manufacturers may not be sued for complications from being administered their products.
First of all, the White House issued a statement saying the first family was “praying for the Americans who’ve lost their lives, for those still in critical care, and for the families, survivors and community members enduring shock and grief.”
The message moved to recalling last year’s gun control package that passed with the controversial aid of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
Biden then transitioned to the heart of his purpose. He urged his congressional opponents “to fulfill their duty to protect the American people. Work with us to pass a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to enact universal background checks, to require safe storage of guns and end immunity from liability for gun manufacturers.”
The oft-repeated liability claim was fact-checked last year by the Associated Press after yet another presidential statement.
During an address to the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force in New York City, the president proclaimed that weapons manufacturers are “the only industry in America that is exempted from being sued by the public. The only one.”
The erroneous claim is based on the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This legislation was necessary to ward off a wave of frivolous lawsuits from anti-gun advocates that threatened to cripple the constitutionally protected industry.
Never mind that the presidential statement was untrue. It was widely shared on social media and trumpeted as a fact.
Reality is that gun manufacturers are far from immune to lawsuits and currently face several.
The 2005 statute contained six exceptions in which the firearms industry could face litigation. They included defects or damage due to the weapon design, negligence or breach of contract or warranty pertaining to the transaction through which the weapon was purchased.
Another is the “predicate exception.” This subjects the industry to possible litigation if it knowingly violated a federal or state law regarding the sale or marketing of guns. An example is the current lawsuit pending out of Newtown, Connecticut, regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.
Plaintiffs charge “wrongful marketing” of weapons by the industry.
Without PLCAA protections, the industry would almost certainly be sued out of existence by gun rights foes.
And Biden is hardly the only leader who rushed forward to demand more gun control. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) swooped in to assert that tougher gun laws would have stopped the Maine tragedy.
Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms criticized Biden and Newsom for comments on the horrific incident. He observed “both of them know none of these proposals would have prevented what happened Wednesday evening.”
Gottlieb added, “They pounced like craven political opportunists in hopes of using this tragedy to stir up public emotions in an effort to push gun control restrictions they’ve been promoting for years.”
In a rare moment of honesty, gun rights opponents would be forced to admit that rifles are used in very few murders. They would also acknowledge that there are millions of lawful gun owners in the U.S. who cause absolutely no harm.
