| Revision as of 17:47, 16 October 2015 editGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits rework into some sections← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:47, 16 October 2015 edit undoGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Background: expand background (more to do)Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.<ref name=Munoz>Munoz, S. Media Matters, December 19, 2012.</ref> |
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.<ref name=Munoz>Munoz, S. Media Matters, December 19, 2012.</ref> | ||
| After years of unsuccessful attempts to legislate gun control, proponents of gun control attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into voluntarily implementing some measures. | |||
| In 1998, ] Mayor ] sued gun makers and dealers saying "We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet". <ref>http://articles.philly.com/1998-11-13/news/25733300_1_gun-industry-gun-manufacturers-gun-shops</ref> | |||
| In 2000 ] facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President ], in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits.<ref>http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html</ref><ref>http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/gunagree.html</ref> However, included in the agreement were various restrictions which required any vendor of a Smith and Wesson gun to comply with the restrictions on all guns sold thus having a much wider effect.<ref>https://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/a-smith-wesson-faq/</ref> | |||
| ] Secretary ] was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and ] said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door". <ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=c0rZNHtrZRYC&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> | |||
| In January of 2005, ] passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures. <ref>http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/vote_records.php?s=3&id=138</ref> | |||
| ==Legislative history== | ==Legislative history== | ||
Revision as of 18:47, 16 October 2015
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 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 (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) 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.
Background
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.
After years of unsuccessful attempts to legislate gun control, proponents of gun control attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into voluntarily implementing some measures.
In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers saying "We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet".
In 2000 Smith and Wesson facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits. However, included in the agreement were various restrictions which required any vendor of a Smith and Wesson gun to comply with the restrictions on all guns sold thus having a much wider effect.
HUD Secretary Andrew Quomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door".
In January of 2005, New York City passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures.
Legislative history
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law." The final bill passed only after adding an amendment that mandated safety locks on handguns, and after preventing the renewal of the assault weapons ban from being added.
Suits
Since the laws passage, there have been two cases taken to trial for damages. In the first, a jury found in favor of a gun store in Alaska after a gun purchased by Jason Coday was used in a murder. The second resulted in a $6 million dollar verdict against Brew City Shooter Supply.
Renewed interest
After the 2012 Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds.
See also
References
- ^ Munoz, S. Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? Media Matters, December 19, 2012.
- http://articles.philly.com/1998-11-13/news/25733300_1_gun-industry-gun-manufacturers-gun-shops
- http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
- http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/gunagree.html
- https://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/a-smith-wesson-faq/
- https://books.google.com/books?id=c0rZNHtrZRYC&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false
- http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/vote_records.php?s=3&id=138
- NRA. President Bush signs Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
- http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/as-long-awaited-trial-opens-officers-attorney-faults-gun-store-sale-b99587735z1-330182131.html
- Bissell, H.J. Rolling Back Legal Immunity for the Gun Industry. Daily Kos, Jan 14, 2013.
- Miller, Matt (June 15, 2015). "Jury says Rayco Sales wasn't liable for Simone Kim's murder". KTOO.