"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903."
A NYT editorial urges that this so-called "Gun industry shield law" be repealed and that gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers should face liability is someone commits a crime with a weapon they manufactured, etc. This is a back-door move to try to put American gun manufacturers out of business. The issue arises regarding the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle (AR-15 copy) used in the Sandy Hook School mass murders
"This is the eminently reasonable point that the parents of the 6- and 7-year-old students cut down at the school are now pressing in Connecticut state court. They are attempting to sue the gun manufacturer, Remington; the wholesaler; and a local retailer for recklessness in providing the weapon to the consumer marketplace “with no conceivable use for it other than the mass killing of other human beings.” [This is obviously a lie. Go to any rifle range on a busy day and you will see lots of people target shooting such rifles. They are lawful for hunting in most states, and are used for hunting.]
The question of whether the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed is at issue because Congress, prodded by the gun lobby, in 2005 foolishly granted the gun industry nearly complete immunity from legal claims and damages from the criminal use of guns.
The Sandy Hook parents argue that their suit should continue because that law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, allows claims against companies — gun shop dealers, for example — if they knew or should have known that the weapons they sold were likely to risk injury to others. The parents contend that the maker of the Bushmaster is no less culpable because it knowingly marketed a risky war weapon to civilians."
"The Sandy Hook parents argue that their suit should continue because that law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, allows claims against companies — gun shop dealers, for example — if they knew or should have known that the weapons they sold were likely to risk injury to others. The parents contend that the maker of the Bushmaster is no less culpable because it knowingly marketed a risky war weapon to civilians."
This logic, of course can be applied to any weapon, rifle or pistol, that can take a large-capacity magazine. Does it then apply to all handguns next?
Then where does it stop? It doesn't stop for the ideologues who want to ban all firearms.
Gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers don't kill people--People kill people.
As the quote indicates, the Act is not a complete shield. I believe it is a fair way to deal with the issue. The statute does not authorize liability in the Sandy Hook case. It should not be repealed. Note that Clinton and Sanders are urging repeal.
As the quote indicates, the Act is not a complete shield. I believe it is a fair way to deal with the issue. The statute does not authorize liability in the Sandy Hook case. It should not be repealed. Note that Clinton and Sanders are urging repeal.
Let's sue Ford or GM if one of their vehicles was the getaway car in a robbery...
ReplyDeleteArt
And why not sue them if one of their super-fast cars is used to deliberately run down and kill someone.
ReplyDelete