Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tort Reform Gun Manufacturers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill limiting government lawsuits against gun manufacturers after hours of debate
Summary
After extensive floor debate, the Utah Senate voted 17–11 to advance House Bill 199, which prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from suing manufacturers for harms caused by lawful products, a move supporters framed as protecting manufacturers and opponents warned could pre‑judge future legitimate claims.
The Utah State Senate on Feb. 28, 2000 advanced House Bill 199, a measure that would bar the state and its political subdivisions from suing gun manufacturers for harms caused by the misuse of legally manufactured firearms.
Sponsor Senator Stevenson argued the bill is a principled protection for manufacturers of lawful products. "This would be like steak knife manufacturers," he said, pressing the analogy that makers of legal products should not be held liable for third‑party misuse. He framed the bill as shielding manufacturers from harassment by government entities using litigation to seek regulatory change.
Opponents raised constitutional and practical concerns. Senator Peterson said the bill would "take away the right if there is a legitimate lawsuit" and accused the chamber of prejudging future litigation; Senator Montgomery warned the measure could remove a remedy for communities or the state that might be justified in some circumstances. Senator Allen said the statute would pre‑determine outcomes and urged colleagues not to "prejudge any possible future issue."
Senator Valentine, who supported the bill, said the prohibition applies "only by the state and its political subdivision" and does not prevent private citizens from suing manufacturers: "If someone is injured because of an improperly manufactured gun, this bill doesn't stop them from suing the gun manufacturer for negligence," he said.
On the floor the Senate recorded 17 yea votes, 11 nay votes and one absent, sending HB199 to the third reading calendar.
What happens next: HB199 must go through the third‑reading process and then be returned to the House for final action before becoming law. The floor debate flagged potential unintended consequences — including venue‑shopping and impacts on local manufacturers — that may resurface in committee or amendment processes.
