Alphecca

The House Votes Today

Today the House votes on "The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" that will put an end to many (not all) of the frivolous lawsuits filed by greedy lawyers and their clients against the gun industry. All this bill does is say that if the product isn't defective -- it operates as advertised -- and wasn't distributed or sold illegally, then liability lawsuits cannot be filed against the manufacturer or distributor or dealer.

Sounds good but of course the Brady Bunch are already planning their challenges:

...But lawyers at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence call the bill a "special interest extravaganza" that threatens the rights of "gun victims."

The Brady Center, which has filed a number of negligence/nuisance lawsuits against the gun industry, said Congress can pass the bill, the president can sign it, but "this shameful law will not stand."

Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, called the bill "an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us. We believe state and federal courts across this nation are prepared to strike it down."

I think of it more as "an unprecedented attack" on the get-rich-quick schemes of victims and their lawyers but that's just me... You notice that nobody sues Ford because a drunk kills someone with one of their cars. I should add, yet!

Reaction from the liberal media borders on the hysterical. Denise at The Ten Ring tackles a New York Times editorial with proper vigor and meanwhile from Newsday we get this:

Confronted with a clear choice - protect the firearms industry or protect victims of gun violence - Congress is poised to side with the gun trade. In a shameful display of special-interest politics, the Senate voted in August to make it all but impossible to sue gun makers or firearms dealers for any role they may play in putting guns into the hands of criminals.

In a shameful display of misleading the public, Newsday has just told a fib: If the manufacturer or distributor is negligent or otherwise ignores BATF regulations and the law, they CAN BE SUED! Newsday furthers the error with this:

Had this bill been law before victims of the infamous D.C. snipers settled a lawsuit against the gun shop responsible for the rifle used in those deadly attacks, the victims' families would have been booted out of court. They would have been barred from collecting a dime, even though the gun dealer involved couldn't account for 239 guns that had gone missing from his inventory, one of them the rifle used in the 2002 Washington-area rampage.

WRONG! The Bull's Eye Gun Shop was clearly negligent in allowing a bunch (the number is in dispute but not that it was a lot) of guns to "disappear" from it's inventory. Once again, since Newsday and the New York Times don't seem to have actually READ the bill, here are the exclusions to immunity from liability as appearing in the bill:

(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.

I've added the emphasis to parts that could be applied to Bull's Eye and would have allowed the DC Victim's suits to proceed. Certainly the "negligence per se" is applicable.

The above parts of the bill are also the reason I think the bill will stand muster -- it allows due process but only in a valid case. There would be no more of these throwing the spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks suits where the plaintiffs don't even know who actually manufactured the gun.

Bush could sign this bill into law by Friday. I might actually think good of him for awhile...

Posted by Jeff Soyer at October 20, 2005 07:36 AM