Alphecca

Gun Maker Shield Bill Advances

Here's some good news from the Washington Times:

The House Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a bill that would shield gun manufacturers, distributors and importers from lawsuits seeking damages for the misuse of their products.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act now will move to the House floor, where it is expected to pass.

Lawmakers from rural districts said the time has come for Congress to protect the firearms industry from lawsuits that could put it out of business.

"This measure provides protection only against suits based on the criminal or unlawful acts of third parties -- not against their own negligent or criminal conduct," said Rep. Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican and one of the bill's sponsors. "Under this measure, manufacturers or sellers must operate entirely within federal and state law and are still liable for acts of negligence and for defective products."

Opponents of the bill have argued that distributors and dealers who knowingly sell guns to criminals or fail to report suspicious purchasing activity would be shielded. They say repeated purchases of handguns is a clear indication that the firearms are not for personal use.

Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, one of 46 Democrats supporting the bill, said there is no reason to allow the lawsuits to continue.

"The effort of cities to sue gun manufacturers because someone misuses a firearm is nothing but an attempt to impose gun control by judicial means," Mr. Boucher said.

He said the criminal who uses the gun should be held responsible, not the person who sold it legally or the company that made the gun.

Courts have agreed with that position. Mr. Stearns said judges have thrown out 20 cases brought by localities against gun manufacturers and distributors. Every appellate court has dismissed such cases, and 30 states have banned the lawsuits.

Frankly though, it shouldn't matter how many or why. As long as the dealer followed the law, he should be protected. If the gun-grabbers want to limit the number of guns someone can buy, they should do it through legislation, not through civil lawsuits.

As for the claim that legitimate suits could not go forward, here again for the umpteenth-time is the text in the bill that belies that:

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party,
but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions enumerated under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy.

It is the suit against Bushmaster that would have been prevented (on advice from their insurance company, they also settled).

This bill only "shields" those who manufacter or sell firearms according to the letter of the law. Most of them do and there is no reason to constantly subject them to frivolous lawsuits from greedy municipalities (and their lawyers).

Lastly, gun control advocates claim that "no other industry enjoys such protection!" Well folks, maybe it's time they did.

It will be interesting to see if the bill can make it out of Congress this time without the usual suspects trying to attach the bogus "assault weapons ban" renewal to it as they did last Spring.