RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Cohen reports: "Congress enacted a law in 2005 - under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry - that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued."

Is Congress ready to give up protecting gun manufacturers? (photo: NY Magazine)
Is Congress ready to give up protecting gun manufacturers? (photo: NY Magazine)

Why Is Congress Protecting the Gun Industry?

By Adam Cohen, Time Magazine

25 December 12


aniel Williams, a 16-year-old high school basketball star, was shot and badly injured while practicing outside of his home in Buffalo, N.Y. In October, a New York appeals court did something fairly remarkable. It let Williams proceed with a lawsuit against the maker and seller of the gun that that was used to shoot him.

Letting a lawsuit go forward may not sound like a big deal, but Congress enacted a law in 2005 - under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry - that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly.

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings, there have been widespread calls for Congress to pass gun control laws - and it should. But there has been less talk about another important tool that could be used to reduce gun violence: lawsuits against the gun industry. Some of these suits can succeed despite the PLCAA - as the Daniel Williams case shows - and we need more of them to be filed. But if Congress wants to get serious about gun violence, it should repeal the PLCAA.

Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products - from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas - have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation.

Lawsuits also make retailers act more prudently when they sell things. “Dram shop” laws are a classic example. These laws, which allow victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar that sold the liquor, put pressure on bars and restaurants not to let people drive home drunk.

Before the PLCAA, lawsuits were starting to prod the gun industry to act more responsibly. In 2000, Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, agreed to a variety of safety conditions to end lawsuits that threatened to put it in bankruptcy. Among other things, Smith & Wesson agreed to put a second, hidden set of serial numbers on all of its new guns to make it harder for criminals to scratch away the identifying markings.

But the PLCAA took away the pressure to work on safety. Protected against lawsuits, gun manufacturers have less incentive to develop improved technology for locking guns when they are not in use and gun dealers have less reason to worry about whether the person they are selling a firearm to will use it to commit a crime.

The PLCAA contains exceptions that allow lawsuits in some cases - and gun control advocates and victims of gun violence should bring more suits that take advantage of these exceptions. One of the biggest exceptions is a provision that allows gun makers and sellers to be held liable when they know they are breaking a federal or state law. This is the one the New York appeals court relied on in allowing Daniel Williams’ suit to proceed. Williams is suing the Ohio seller who sold the firearm used to shoot him. He is alleging that the seller had reason to know that the buyers were gun traffickers who would turn around and resell the guns they bought on the criminal market.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is using this same loophole in a wrongful death suit that it filed this month on behalf of a 36-year-old woman who was shot by a stalker. The suit charges that, an Internet gun website, sold the gun used in the crime to the killer even though he did not live in state, as the law requires.

Lawsuits that use PLCAA loopholes to hold the gun industry accountable are important, but they are not enough. We are hearing a lot about gun rights these days - including from the Supreme Court, which has greatly expanded the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But with rights come responsibilities. Congress should repeal the PLCAA and require the gun industry to act according to the same standards of responsibility and safety as the rest of us. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+22 # BobboMax 2012-12-25 23:33
Sounds good to me- put the greed of liability lawyers to use. Where there's a chance of a deep-pockets liability suit, lawyers and loopholes are a potent combination.
+16 # Regina 2012-12-25 23:55
Passage of the PLCAA shows that we have the "best" Congress that money can buy -- in this case, it's the money provided by the NRA and the interests it actually serves: the gun and ammunition corporations and their venues, including gun shows and arenas hosting those shows. It is significant that the PLCAA was enacted during the GWBush administration.
+13 # Archie1954 2012-12-26 00:25
You knowe that scum rises to the top so don't act surprised thgat the most incompentent and psychotic president in modern times signed that disgusting legislation into law.
+1 # Pancho 2012-12-27 21:44
Bush clearly was the most incompetent. You think he was psychotic too?
-1 # jdirt 2012-12-28 01:05
Carter gets my vote.
0 # Dion Giles 2012-12-26 01:11
The only responsible action the gun industry can take is to sell only to public authorities which need them for maintaining law and order.
+8 # RMDC 2012-12-26 07:54
I have to disagree with you here. The "public authorities" are not on the side of people. They use guns to intimidate people. There are thousands of people shot or killed each year by police. SWAT teams break into houses every day across america.

Why not de-militarize the entire government. That would lead the way to de-gunning citizens. Many gun nuts think they are buying guns in order to provide a check on government power. This is a delusion in reality, but it has an appeal in theory.
+3 # eowynelf 2012-12-26 10:18
I'm all for lawsuits--as long as they use a jury, are presided over by a judge, and both sides have equal access to appeal. I, for one, have no use for "tort reform" legislation. Sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to transfer ill-gotten gains back to the general population.
+1 # davidr 2012-12-26 12:26
As a society, when we decided to become hostile to "big government," we left ourselves little choice but to allow for everyone to settle their own hash through private litigation. This works after a fashion — I agree with eowynelf in that respect — but it's far from ideal. Judgments are cautionary, but not precedent setting. They often seem arbitrary and are not infrequently overturned.

But whataya gonna do? In a three branched government, if the legislature refuses to regulate, and if the executive will not or cannot do so by administrative order, then what's left but the courts? This is where our sharp turn toward a corporatist SCOTUS is most unhappy. Now, there is no branch of government adequately enabled or committed to regulation.

The same problem obtained during the Great Depression. It was solved institutionally by electing large legislative majorities who subscribed to an active agenda of economic justice. The Court opposed for a while, but eventually gave up.

So if we want better gun regulation, yes, we can sue for it (in the Roberts court), but don't count on any serious reform until we vote for a Congress that will enact it.
0 # Scooter721 2012-12-27 15:10
Can you sue General motors because someone you care about got run over and killed by a Buick?
-1 # EgoSum01 2012-12-28 08:23
In little shops, in every town, a citizen could buy a magnet sign to express their patriotism and support of the ‘new faith’ that had replaced the radicals and their old religions and beliefs. Over the smiling image of their great and fearless President, it read:

Liberty for No One
Without Order for Everyone

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.