Civil procedure: other; firearm industry responsibility act; provide for. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 3845. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5760'26
HB5758 would add a new section to Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act creating a “firearm industry responsibility act” cause of action based on public nuisance. The bill would prohibit firearm industry members from knowingly or recklessly creating, maintaining, or contributing to a public nuisance through the sale, manufacture, importation, or marketing of firearm-related products, and would require those businesses to implement “reasonable controls” over the manufacture, sale, distribution, use, and marketing of those products. The bill defines firearm-related products broadly to include firearms, ammunition, precursor parts, components, accessories, 3D printers, and CNC milling machines when connected to firearm use or distribution in Michigan.
The bill would expand Michigan civil liability law by expressly authorizing the attorney general, and certain damaged persons, to sue firearm industry members for nuisance-related conduct and recover injunctions, abatement, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. It also states that proof of intent to cause harm is not required, and that foreseeable harm may establish proximate cause even when third parties commit unlawful acts. The measure preserves other legal remedies, including claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and common-law nuisance, and it would take effect only if a tied bill is enacted into law.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge directly. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to strengthen accountability for firearm manufacturers and sellers, which typically draws support from gun-safety advocates and opposition from the firearms industry and gun-rights supporters. The absence of recorded proceedings means the public sentiment in the legislative record provided is not available beyond the bill’s policy direction.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad definition of firearm industry responsibility, its use of public nuisance theory, and its allowance for liability even without intent to cause harm. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could expose lawful manufacturers and sellers to expansive litigation for criminal misuse by third parties, while supporters would likely emphasize the requirement for reasonable controls and the focus on preventing straw purchases, trafficking, theft, and unlawful use. The inclusion of 3D printers, CNC milling machines, and pistol converters also suggests potential controversy over how far the bill reaches beyond traditional firearms commerce.