Fact Checking Joe Biden’s Claims on the Gun Industry
The president made a misleading statement about immunity for gun manufacturers.
During his remarks on gun violence in America last Thursday, President Joe Biden repeated a falsehood he regularly cites on the subject and which was repeated in a tweet the same day:
Biden has made a broader claim on this subject in the past, previously calling gun manufacturers “the only industry in America that can’t be sued.” In his Thursday speech, Biden made a slightly different claim: That firearm manufacturers enjoy special privileges that protects them “from being sued for the death and destruction caused by their weapons.”
This phrasing is closer to being accurate, but is still misleading. Gun manufacturers do have a liability shield that protects them from most lawsuits involving crimes the weapons they make are used in. But, as noted in a past fact check:
“the liability shield doesn’t offer complete protection from all lawsuits related to crimes carried out with firearms: A lawsuit filed against Remington by the family members of victims from the Sandy Hook school shooting argued that Remington bore some culpability for the shooting because advertising for the gun used by the killer emphasized its use as a combat weapon. As this broke Connecticut state law regarding advertising practices, the lawsuit was allowed to proceed, and the case was settled with Remington agreeing to pay $73 million to the families.”
More significantly, gun manufacturers receive no protection regarding defects in their products and any injuries or death that may be caused by them. The liability shield also doesn’t protect them in instances in which firearm manufacturers knowingly break federal or state laws regarding the manufacturing or selling of firearms.
Biden went on to claim that gun manufacturers are “the only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity.” He is in error here as well. The manufacturers of automobiles, for example, are liable for injuries or deaths sustained because of their products in instances of a defect, but cannot be sued simply because someone gets in an accident. More recently, pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration have received similar protections that prevent Americans from suing them over side effects from the coronavirus vaccine.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.
Google tells me the public sector employs around 15% of the American workforce. If a "liability shield" for an "American industry" like the gun industry (which employs roughly 2% of Americans) is inherently a bad thing, then why don't we get rid of qualified immunity for government officials? Doing so would assure that 15% of the workforce can be held liable for failing to do the one thing that the 20+ million government workers were hired to do--protect/secure Americans' constitutional rights.
Anyone actually think more of the Uvalde victims would have been saved if Daniel Defense wasn't protected from civil liability? Let's not forget that Daniel Defense must produce, market, and sell an actual product. Consumers can fire Daniel Defense because the company has competitors. How many Uvalde police officers have been fired since the massacre?
What's the Uvalde ISD PD's motivation to do it's job--literally the one thing it was created to do? Duck and cover from an 18-year old with an AR-15 and they face no criminal or civil liability. How could they, we're told, because such liability would cause officers to second guess decisions or act/fail to act out of fear of liability? Ok? Seems like exactly what should have happened in Uvalde, Texas.
Live to fail at protecting kids another day, and the police officers' wages will still be above the median wages for Americans generally (and, most likely, the Uvalde citizens the officers are charged with "protecting and serving"). Uvalde ISD's thin blue line are likely guaranteed a pension and benefits so long as they (not kids/students) survive till their late 30's or early 40's (i.e. retirement). And, finally, they've got a union tasked with ensuring we all "Back the Blue." Think the "gun lobby" is big? Google "Fraternal Order of Police" for kicks and giggles.
Maybe Daniel Defense operates, as some would argue, without concern for what its product "causes" when purchased by those intent with causing death and destruction because the company can line its pockets without fear of recourse. Fair enough. Should we assume the justification of Uvalde ISD police officers is any more noble? They don't seem much concerned about what their actions/inactions cause whatsoever.
Biden is significantly correct. Manufacturing defects are a joke for guns. Has zero today with the issue of mass shootings and school shootings.
False advertising is also the the umbrella clause by which the FDA operates for regulation of Drugs and Medical Devices. They can be sued for
False advertising
Adulterated Products
Failure to follow their own submissions about product composition, Manufacturing and quality processes.
I don't think this partisan dig at Biden has any merit.