Bill shielding Sig Sauer from lawsuits filed due to ‘consumer choice’ clears first Senate Committee

A measure that would make it harder to sue gun manufacturers for liability in certain accidents has cleared its first Senate Committee.

The bill (SB 1748) cleared on an 8-3 vote, with Senate Democratic Leader Lori Berman and Democratic Sen. Tina Scott Polsky voting “no,” along with Republican Sen. Kathleen Passidomo.

The measure would shield gun manufacturers from liability by barring lawsuits against them based on the absence of optional features, such as a safety, if they are not required under federal law.

Under the bill, a lawsuit related to product liability involving “a firearm, evidence of a defective product design, negligence, a duty to warn, strict liability, or evidence to support similar claims” could not be based on the absence of a safety, loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism or any mechanism that would perform similarly.

Gun manufacturer Sig Sauer is seeking the clarification after facing several lawsuits across the nation over alleged issues with its P320 handgun, which litigants have claimed can sometimes fire without a trigger pull.

Reports suggest there have been more than 400 incidents nationwide involving the P320 discharging without a trigger pull.

One speaker at Tuesday’s Committee hearing pointed out that President Donald Trump even cautioned individuals about that specific weapon, telling reporters in the aftermath of Alex Pretti’s shooting death in Minneapolis that Pretti had been armed with a “very dangerous gun, a dangerous and unpredictable gun,” adding that “it’s a gun that goes off when people don’t know it.” Pretti was carrying a P320, according to federal authorities.

But Sen. Jay Trumbull, the bill sponsor, was quick to remind that the bill would still allow firearm users and owners to sue over manufacturing defects unrelated to optional features on the weapon.

“You want to buy a gun with a safety? Do it. If you want to buy a gun without a safety, like in law enforcement, who doesn’t have time for a safety, you know, feel free to purchase that gun. When something goes wrong, you shouldn’t then say, ‘Oh, well, because the absence of something is the reason why this gun inadvertently fired,’” Trumbull said.

Sen. Tom Leek agreed, noting that the bill was about protecting consumer choice.

“They purposely choose to buy this gun without those safety mechanisms that we’re talking about, and there are many reasons they may do it. Law enforcement in particular, they don’t have time for safety. When they’re forced to draw their weapon, they don’t have time, so they may choose to buy a gun without those safety measures that you’ve got there,” he said.

“Then we’re talking about a lawsuit where the person who made the choice now regrets the choice and wants to sue the manufacturer, as if there was a defect. There was no defect. That’s the whole point.”

Several individuals spoke against the measure, or otherwise indicated opposition, including the Florida Police Benevolent Association. William Smith, a member of the group who spoke on its behalf, did not provide specifics, but said he had plans to discuss the group’s concerns with Trumbull.

The NRA supports the bill.

The Tuesday vote teed the measure up for its next stop in the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee.

A similar bill (HB 1551) in the House, carried by Rep. Wyman Duggan, has also cleared one Committee — Civil Justice and Claims — and has one stop remaining in Judiciary.