Is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act fair or does it provide the firearms industry too much protection from litigation?

Do you have any examples of a tobacco company being sued for no reason other than existing?

If gun manufacturers, just like tobacco companies, were being sued because of their marketing practices and misleading people about their harm (after all, they are very deadly), would you still say they were being sued for simply existing?

What I'm getting at is that the reason for being sued is never for just "existing", and "existing" already means doing many things that might be problematic.

If it literally were true, if the suit said "we want them to stop selling guns", then it would be thrown out immediately, making the law useless.

But in real lawsuits, like in the case of the tobacco companies, "existing" means doing something that other businesses do, like advertising a rosier picture of the product than reality, but having it be considered illegal because of special circumstances that apply to a certain product or industry.

I fail to see why any industry should have such lawsuits automatically invalidated by the legislature, when there is a perfectly straightforward way of determining their validity already, the judicial system.

/r/PoliticalDiscussion Thread Parent