I remember the first time I heard about a lawsuit where someone was trying to punish a firearm manufacturer for someone being shot. I thought it was the most asinine thing I'd ever heard. Even if the company sold directly to the individual, unless they somehow committed an illegal sale, they weren't responsible for what happened in any way.

Of course, this came up on Tuesday with Mexico v. Smith & Wesson being argued before the Supreme Court. The term is "proximate cause," where there should be a reasonable understanding that doing something will result in something else happening.

Lawsuits like this led to the creation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

It seems Connecticut thinks they can circumvent that.

Connecticut lawmakers have introduced House Bill 7042, a proposed law that could fundamentally change how firearm sales are regulated. The bill, titled the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, would allow civil lawsuits to be filed against gun dealers, manufacturers, and distributors if a firearm they sold is later used in a crime. While the bill is still in the early stages of legislative review, it has already sparked strong reactions from both gun rights advocates and legal analysts who see it as a direct attack on gun sellers and possibly an attempt to force gun shops out of business.

The text of HB 7042 makes it clear that the law would apply not just to gun sellers but to anyone involved in firearm sales, distribution, or marketing. The bill’s language classifies firearm industry members as any person or business engaged in the sale or promotion of firearms, accessories, or ammunition. This means that not just licensed gun dealers (FFLs) would be affected, but also manufacturers, online retailers, and even potentially firearm-related content creators.

According to Derek Reeves, host of Connecticut Gun Bench, the bill is written so broadly that it could be used to shut down nearly every gun shop in the state. Reeves argues that because the law would allow lawsuits if a gun dealer “should have reasonably foreseen” that a firearm might be used in a crime, it essentially makes FFLs responsible for the actions of criminals they’ve never met.

Basically, HB 7042 means that a lawful gun dealer is responsible for everything that happens, the phrase "should have reasonably foreseen" notwithstanding. After all, as we saw in Mexico's arguments, some people think that any firearm sale should be treated as if one should reasonably foresee that the gun sold would be used in a criminal action.

Further, this seeks to punish gun dealers for not making modifications impossible to the guns. In other words, if they sell a Glock and a criminal puts a full-auto switch on it, then the dealer is responsible for not making it where the gun can't be modified.

Which, to anyone familiar with guns, is impossible. You can't do it. It's just a matter of how badly someone wants to modify the gun, and with how a full-auto switch on a Glock works, I don't see how you could prevent it from being modified at all. Even if you somehow secure the backplate on the slide, just replacing the slide renders that fix moot.

Other guns fall into the same camp. How can you actually prevent them being modified in such a way that they still function? The short answer is that you can't, meaning every gun dealer in the state will be on the hook sooner or later.

The bill also seeks to penalize literally anyone involved in the selling of a gun, including the marketing guys.

This is a bill that is so egregious that words cannot adequately describe how bad it is. Especially since it seeks to try and undermine the PLCAA in and of itself.

Yes, this is in the early days, and I sincerely hope Connecticut has enough sense not to go down this road, but this is Connecticut we're talking about here. They'll probably do this eventually, then they'll get sued and lose in court, but in the meantime, a lot of people may lose their livelihoods over things that were beyond their control.