The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Lakhota]

By Sergio Munoz

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.​

More: Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[Lakhota]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

 

[Avatar4321]

Liable for what? What other people do with guns?

 

[Mr. H.]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Like when someone gets blind drunk and plows his Chevy into a crowd?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

and car manufacturers too for all those accidents they're responsible for . lol

 

[Mr. H.]

Why is there no longer expectation of individual responsibility? Individual accountability?

Blame the gun. Blame the car. Blame the ping pong ball. Blame the Jart. Blame the booze. Blame the bar that served the booze. Blame the friend that let the friend drive the car after drinking the booze.

Blame the enablers and the enabling devices. The individual perpetrator is just an innocent bystander.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

these mindless libs . can't just place blame on the shooter . that would leave them without a jihad. to fight . and they must always be searching for the next jihad.

 

[martybegan]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.

What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.

 

[Mr. H.]

Guns most often function as designed.

Us humans... not so frequently.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is there no longer expectation of individual responsibility? Individual accountability?

Blame the gun. Blame the car. Blame the ping pong ball. Blame the Jart. Blame the booze. Blame the bar that served the booze. Blame the friend that let the friend drive the car after drinking the booze.

Blame the enablers and the enabling devices. The individual perpetrator is just an innocent bystander.

Because it's easier for Lakhota to blame his problems on the collective than take responsibility in his own life.

 

[Claudette]

You bet. Lets not blame the fucking asshole that pulled the trigger. Lets blame the gun.

Shitting bull is an idiot. A gun is an inanimate object. It has no power until someone loads it and pulls the trigger.

I hold the dick pulling the trigger responsible for his or her actions not the gun.

 

[Stephanie]

the propaganda keeps coming..what is THE major media outlet and why should we CARE what they say?

good ole media matter feedings the nuts

 

[Oldguy]

By Sergio Munoz

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.​

More: Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? | Blog | Media Matters for America

A perfectly sensible law. The only objection I have to it is that it isn't broad enough. Every manufacturer should have protection from lawsuits when their product works exactly as intended, not just firearms makers.

 

[007]

The twisted lunacy and blame game from the left never ceases. They have no shame, no integrity, no personal responsibility or character... just like their dear messiah, obama.

 

[Stephanie]

I guess we should hold car dealerships responsible if you buy a car from them and get into a accident..and the idiot beat goes on with media matters.

 

[007]

I guess we should hold car dealerships responsible if you buy a car from them and get into a accident..and the idiot beat goes on with media matters.

And even though your coffee pot is functioning as intended, you use shitty water and shitty coffee in it and get shitty tasting coffee, but don't blame the shitty water and shitty coffee, SUE THE COFFEE POT MAKER!

There's your liberal mindset... twisted, misguided lunacy always looking for someone else to blame for THEIR fuck ups.

 

[Stephanie]

I guess we should hold car dealerships responsible if you buy a car from them and get into a accident..and the idiot beat goes on with media matters.

And even though your coffee pot is functioning as intended, you use shitty water and shitty coffee in it and get shitty tasting coffee, don't blame the shitty water and shitty coffee, SUE THE COFFEE POT MAKER!

There's your liberal mindset... twisted, misguided lunacy always looking for someone else to blame for THEIR fuck ups.

mediamatters is a commie website..they would love nothing more than to get control over more things in our lives

 

[Mac1958]

.

Seems to me that most liability lawsuits happen because either (a) the product does not function properly, or (b) the effects of the product are misrepresented in some way by the manufacturer.

I don't see either one of those here. Any lawyers (cough) in the house?

.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

 

[Missourian]

Time to tax stupid people to compensate the rest of us for wasting our time reading their stupid threads.