It may not seem so obvious, but I wonder if today’s Supreme Court ruling against File Sharing companies might act as a precedent against gun manufacturers?
In the anti-File Sharing ruling, the Supreme Court is in essence holding the software companies responsible for the illegal actions of their users. If the same idea were applied to gun manufacturers, then one could conceivably hold them responsible for the illegal actions of their users as well — murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault in this case.
I realize that it’s a bit of a leap in terms of the nature of the products, and the crimes involved, but legally speaking I wonder if it’s really as big a leap as one might first think.
Update: I’m listening to the Glenn Mitchell Show on KERA, and someone asked a question about this. Glenn’s researcher came back a bit later, saying that basically the Supreme Court determined that Grokster has no substantial non-infringing uses (something which itself I disagree with), whereas firearms have non-criminal uses like home protection, hunting, etc.
But what about cheap guns that seem to be marketed towards criminals, or ammunition which is advertised as specifically able to pierce body armor? Surely the latter is a product which is specifically manufactured and sold to civilians with no significant legitimate uses.