Would “Loser Pays” Tort Reform Stop Anti-Gun Lawsuits?

I wonder which end Judge Ortiz licks first.

The right to sue for redress of grievances is baked into the Constitution … but it doesn’t say who has to pay the lawyers.

Once again, an activist judge in a deep-blue state is permitting yet another baseless and actually illegal lawsuit. This time, it’s Judge L. Ortiz of Lake County, Illinois, and the illegal lawsuit is against Smith & Wesson. Yes, it’s illegal; the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) actually forbids suing gun manufacturers for the behavior of criminals.

Lawsuits like the ones Judge Ortiz just allowed to go forward are absurd, and they have been for 25 years. Suing S&W because a mass shooter used a Smith pistol is exactly the same thing as suing Dodge because someone drove a Challenger into a crowd. It’s a very different story than suing because the gun malfunctioned (which is, of course, still perfectly legal because it’s perfectly rational).

But here’s the thing: Activist judges are actively ignoring the PLCAA. Gun-grabbers know this very well, and are careful to file their suits in districts they know will be friendly, a practice known as “judge shopping.” But what if America did something that we’ve been debating for a long time: Instituting tort reform? What if we installed a European-style “loser pays” system in which whoever loses the lawsuit has to pay the legal fees for the winner?

The point of “loser pays” is to reduce the number of frivolous and vexatious lawsuits–court cases that the plaintiff knows are likely to fail. But could it work in America, and would it change anything in regards to lawsuits like the one the Second Amendment Foundation is reporting on today? It’s hard to say, especially given the fact that the people who fund these anti-gun lawsuits have very, very deep pockets indeed. In fact, some of these anti-gun lawsuits are being funded by the taxpayers in that state. They already don’t care if they win or lose, as long as they get a chance to drag a gun company’s name through the mud and to bleed them for hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of legal fees.

What do you think? Would tort reform help stop these baseless lawsuits? Let us know in the comments … but first check out what the Second Amendment Foundaiton (SAF) has to say!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Second Amendment Foundation is calling a decision by Lake County, Ill., Judge Jorge L. Ortiz to allow a wrongful death lawsuit against Smith & Wesson to proceed “outrageous.”

Seven people were killed and dozens more were injured when Robert Crimo III opened fire at a July 4, 2022 parade in Highland Park. He has pleaded guilty in the case and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. His father also pleaded guilty on seven felony counts of reckless conduct for signing his son’s Illinois Firearm Ownership Identification (FOID) card, according to a report by CBS News.

“Such legal actions are precisely why Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) back during the George W. Bush administration,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Smith & Wesson is no more responsible for the evil act committed by the Highland Park shooter than a car manufacturer would be if some drunk behind the wheel smashed into a school bus and caused a fatal crash.”

“Smith & Wesson, like any number of other manufacturers in other industries, had absolutely no control over the criminal misuse of their product,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Allowing these types of lawsuits to proceed only invites further litigation against firearms manufacturers to drive them out of business through lawfare. While such an end result may be the desired effect by the anti-gun crowd, it would be detrimental to the exercise of Second Amendment rights and also national defense.”

More than 20 years ago, several cities tried to sue the firearms industry in an effort to hold gun makers and firearms retailers responsible for violent crimes committed by people over whom they had no control. These legal actions were dubbed “junk lawsuits” by the industry, and only succeeded in costing gun companies millions of dollars in legal fees.

“The argument today is essentially the same used almost 25 years ago,” Gottlieb recalled. “They are accusing Smith & Wesson of marketing practices aimed at teens and younger people, in violation of Illinois consumer protection laws, which is nonsense. This legal action appears solely designed to cost the company millions of dollars in an attempt to drive it out of business. We’re aware the plaintiffs have been working with billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, which has previously supported lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry, thus depriving consumers from purchasing firearms and exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.”