I wouldn't think it can apply where a gun is legally purchased and then used to murder - it could apply where the companies let loopholes be used to circumvent background checks.

Bryant

to Federal Licensed dealers (or maybe direct to LE agencies.)

on edit:

POSSIBLY companies could be liable for some negligence, but more like recklessness, in 'packaging' firearms that might apeal to kids (as shown in a couple other threads). May be they could be held reckless in not providing more safe features like built in trigger locks, etc. Which BTW, I think many gunners tend to avoid such products.

But if there are faultlines that would be one of them I think.

Bryant

in case anyone wants to read the details:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf

They're immune from liability for crimes committed by people who use their products.

Nobody tries to sue car manufacturers for accidents caused by people who are speeding or driving drunk. The federal law in question was an unintended consequence of a series of SLAPP lawsuits.

The same tort laws that work for automobiles, tobacco, etc. are good enough for the gun industry.

If not at the end of legally conducted sale, then when?

My point is that judges and juries should decide these cases based on the same precedents and criteria that are applied to any other industry. The gun industry shouldn't get a free pass because of the influence the NRA has on the Republican party.

Certain cities, in particular, were trying to use the courts to accomplish something they could not get from the legislatures, i.e. making firearms unavailable. The need to defend an avalanche of largely meritless lawsuits would have either bankrupted the gun manufacturers or forced them to raise the cost of their products to the point where they would be unaffordable for the average person. That is not a proper use of the civil justice system and the law was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

instead of using republican Brady Group talking points