Leave it to Michigan’s Democratic lawmakers to trot out the tired old trope of “consumer protection” as an excuse to wage war on the firearm industry. Their latest legislative push, now advancing through the state House Judiciary Committee, proposes removing liability protections for gun manufacturers. The aim? To bypass federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and bankrupt gun companies through an avalanche of lawsuits.

Let’s get one thing straight: the PLCAA doesn’t give gun manufacturers blanket immunity. What it does is protect them from frivolous lawsuits designed to punish them for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. It doesn’t protect them if their products are defective or if they engage in false advertising. Yet Michigan Democrats are claiming their proposed legislation is about consumer protection and holding gunmakers accountable for so-called “irresponsible practices.”

PLCAA: A Necessary Shield Against Frivolous Lawsuits

The PLCAA is a federal law that ensures gun manufacturers and sellers aren’t held responsible for crimes committed by individuals using their products. It’s no different than shielding carmakers from being sued every time someone gets drunk and crashes a car, killing someone, or preventing alcohol manufacturers from being sued because someone drank too much and caused a fatal wreck.

Let’s be honest: If you try to sue Ford or Toyota because a drunk driver used their vehicle to kill someone, you’ll get laughed out of court unless you can prove a specific defect in the vehicle caused the crash. And you will likely be sued to repay the costs of their defense in the case. The same principle applies to firearms. You can sue a gun company if a gun is defective, just like you can sue an automaker if faulty brakes cause an accident. But you don’t get to sue simply because someone misuses the product. But anti-gun Democrats aren’t just misleading the public about this, they are blatantly lying. They say laws like the PLCAA protects gun makers from “any” lawsuit. But that simply is not true. State Rep. Ranjeev Puri parrots the lies spewed by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, which isn’t about safety, but about supporting anti-gun legislation.

LIE 1: “The proposed bills would remove protections that have for years given the gun industry immunity that no other industry is afforded, said state Rep. Ranjeev Puri, a Canton Township Democrat who helped introduce the bills,” the Detroit Free Press reports.

LIE 2: “This bill would allow victims of gun violence and impacted communities to hold the gun industry accountable for irresponsible practices that have for years created dangerous conditions in the state of Michigan,” Puri told the Free Press.

A Transparent Attempt to Bankrupt Gunmakers

Michigan’s bill doesn’t protect consumers; it creates a legal minefield designed to crush gunmakers under the weight of endless litigation and an opportunity for failing Democratically run cities to try to cash in on their persecution to fill their coffers to fund more ineffective city programs. State Rep. Kelly Breen, a Democrat backing the legislation, claims this isn’t about the Second Amendment. Really? What else would you call a proposal that allows anyone to sue gun manufacturers for legally selling a perfectly functioning product?

State Rep. Andrew Fink, a Republican, nailed it when he described this as a “shadow ban” on firearms. The legislation doesn’t seek accountability—it seeks annihilation.

Under Michigan’s proposal, gun manufacturers could be sued for “creating a public nuisance” through the lawful marketing or sale of their products. Imagine if that same logic were applied to other industries: Could knife makers be sued because someone used a kitchen knife in a stabbing? Could a brewery be held liable for a drunk driver’s actions? Should makers of violent movies and video games be held liable for crimes committed by those who may be inspiried by their creations? We know advertising–the creation of words, sounds, images or video to promote a brand, product or service in order to illicit a response from consumers–works. If it didn’t, companies wouldn’t spend a projected $389.49 billion on advertising in 2024. So, why do we think some unstable people are not influenced by the violent images and depictions they see and experience in movies and video games?

The Double Standard

If this legislation were truly about consumer safety, Democrats would be targeting other industries as well. Yet, we don’t see calls to hold alcohol companies liable for drunk driving deaths. That’s because dram shop laws—which hold establishments, not manufacturers, responsible for over-serving alcohol—already address those issues. Similarly, car manufacturers aren’t dragged into court when someone decides to ignore the law and speed through a school zone.

Why should gunmakers be treated differently? Because Democrats want to bankrupt them, plain and simple.

Guns Are Inherently Dangerous— Ummm, That’s the Point Stupid

Firearms are designed to fire projectiles. When projectiles made of lead or other metals strike tissue and bone at say anywhere between 800 fps and 4,000 fps, it can do some major freaking damage. Serious injury and even death can result. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, and the gun works as intended, that’s not a defect—it’s a crime. Michigan’s proposal pretends to ignore this basic truth while relying on the kind of virtue-signaling that’s become the hallmark of anti-gun lawmakers.

If the goal were really about “accountability,” we’d see the same level of scrutiny applied to video game developers or Hollywood producers who create violent media. After all, violent video games and movies (as already noted above) could arguably inspire someone to commit violence. But under the First Amendment, media creators are protected. The same principle should apply to the firearms industry under both the First and the Second Amendments.

Federal Law Will Prevail

Let’s not kid ourselves: even if Michigan Democrats succeed in passing this legislation, the PLCAA will supersede it. Federal law is clear, and it’s not going anywhere. So why push for laws that will inevitably fail? Simple: it’s political theater designed to curry favor with their liberal base while wasting everyone’s time and resources. That or they are genuinely intellectually stunted to the point that they fail to see the legal illogic in their proposals. They need to educate themselves if this is the case.

Michigan’s bill isn’t about consumer protection or safety; it’s about disarming the public and dismantling the firearms industry. The PLCAA was enacted to prevent precisely this kind of bad-faith legislation, and it will continue to protect gunmakers from being scapegoated for the actions of criminals.

This isn’t about safety or accountability—it’s about control. And gun owners everywhere should be paying attention. In fact, Americans everywhere should be paying attention. Because if they can pass this, it sets the blueprint for legislators to come after any product you hold dear and that can be misused in a way that someone else doesn’t like. Is this really the America we want to live in?