A company in Ohio that operates “entertainment venues” filed a lawsuit. They sued Smith & Wesson, Remington, Sig Sauer, and other gun manufacturers “because the design of their firearms were “negligently” enabling criminal acts of gun violence.”
According to these (former) plaintiffs, the firearm manufacturers needed to be sued because it was obvious that the risk of criminal use far outweighed the “negligible” utility of lawful uses like hunting, sporting or self-defense. The plaintiffs sought money from the firearm manufacturers because they felt that operators of entertainment venues (restaurants, bars, stadiums and shopping centers) were supposedly losing “market share due to public hysteria over the real threat of mass shootings” and incurred “increased costs due to the resulting increased security requirements.”
While the gun-grabbing left is probably drooling over the possibilities, wipe your chins and head for your safe spaces. The defendants ask for dismissal for lack of standing, and guess what? The case was tossed.
The plaintiff’s case was fundamentally misplaced. The perceived prospect of a possible threat—like a possible mass shooting at an entertainment venue—and lost “market share” due to increased security costs isn’t actionable. Such injuries do not rise above “a set of generalized grievances.” Like the supposed “benefits” of gun control, such “injuries” remain speculative and hypothetical.
I agree, but there is another point worth making. Many, if not most of the places where the gun-grabbing left has successfully implemented as much ‘common-sense’ gun-control as they can muster are the most violent, crime-ridden, murder-capitals in the nation.
That’s not speculative.
The absence of the potential for armed law-abiding citizens has a detrimental effect on “security costs” and the health and welfare of citizens in these places.
Victims who have been harmed should sue their local government for the repeal of these dangerous anti-gun laws.
| NRA-ILA
