I credited him with the intelligence to actually understand what the law covered. If he truly understood what the law, then it was willful misdirection when he said that S. 397 is (and I quote):
"a bill that prohibits victims of the gun industry’s negligent practices from filing lawsuits in America’s courts."
That is utter bullshit. The law does nothing of the kind. It simply prevents firearms manufacturers from being sued when otherwise properly functioning firearms are used in criminal acts after they have been legally transferred to sellers. Negligence on the part of the manufacturer is still actionable under this law, and I expected Bill to know that - especially considering that one of his cites was one where Kahr Arms was held to be criminally negligent because they did not accurately track and protect their stock. (This judgment occurred AFTER the law was passed, so obviously the law must cover negligent practices, right?)
Why was the law passed? Because individuals and groups were suing firearms manufacturers for merely building firearms. It reached the point where D.C. actually passed a law holding manufacturers liable for any violence caused by "assault weapons". That would be like saying that anyone injured in a car accident could sue the auto manufacturers for damages, even if the auto was functioning properly and the driver was at fault. Even though there was no legal foundation, and the lawsuits were eventually thrown out of court, they were still costing firearms manufacturers millions of dollars by having to respond to them. Thus, S. 397 was proposed and passed (House 283-144, Senate 65-31) and signed into law.
Now, if Bill really can't understand that, then I apologize for having mistakenly believed him capable of that level of perception and basing my reply on that belief.
= new reply since forum marked as read