Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
Great Seal of the United States
Other short titles Child Safety Lock Act of 2005
Long title An Act to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Acronyms (colloquial) PLCAA
Nicknames Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005
Enacted by the 109th United States Congress
Effective October 26, 2005
Citations
Public law 109-92
Statutes at Large 119 Stat. 2095
Codification
Titles amended
U.S.C. sections created 15 U.S.C. ch. 105 §§ 7901, 7902, 7903
U.S.C. sections amended 18 U.S.C. ch. 44 §§ 921, 922, 924
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the Senate as S. 397 by Larry Craig (RID) on February 16, 2005
  • Passed the Senate on July 29, 2005 (65-31 Roll call vote 219, via Senate.gov)
  • Passed the House on October 20, 2005 (283-144 Roll call vote 534, via Clerk.House.gov)
  • Signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2005

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 is 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[edit]

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.[1]

In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers, saying: "You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens."[2] The city of Bridgeport, Connecticut also sued several gun companies. Mayor Joseph Ganim said that the city's action aimed at "creating law with litigation...That's the route that we're going because [the industry has] always very effectively, with big money, lobbied the legislature and kept laws from being passed."[3]

In 2000, Smith & 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.[4][5] The agreement required Smith & Wesson to sell guns only through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much wider potential impact than just Smith & Wesson.[6]

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo 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".[7]

In January 2005, New York City passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures.[8]

Legislative history[edit]

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.[citation needed]

The act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31.[9] On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 in favor and 144 opposed.[10]

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.[citation needed]

It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92.[11] Wayne LaPierre of 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."[12][13][14]

Suits[edit]

Since the law's passage, there have been two cases taken to a jury 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 six million dollar verdict against Badger Guns after guns negligently sold there were used to shoot police officers.[15]

Dismissed suits[edit]

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Ileto v. Glock, ending a lawsuit against Glock by the family of victims in the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting.[16]

The Brady Center and families of victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting sued Lucky Gunner, the online store where some of the ammunition was purchased. Federal judge Richard Paul Matsch dismissed the charges.[17][18] He ordered the plaintiffs to pay Lucky Gunner's legal fees under a separate Colorado law, HB 000-208.[19]

Renewed interest[edit]

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.[1][20][21]

2016 election[edit]

During the 2016 United States presidential election, the act became a campaign issue, particularly within the Democratic Party primaries.

Hillary Clinton stated that she would repeal the law if elected,[22] saying: "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."[23] Shortly after Clinton made this claim, fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability.[23]

Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."[24][25] He changed his position somewhat in January 2016, saying that he would favor a partial repeal of the law.[26]

External links[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Munoz, S. Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? Media Matters, December 19, 2012.
  2. ^ "Chicago Sues Gun-makers And Retailers The Lawsuit Says Firearms Create A Deadly Public Nuisance. It Follows A Recent Filing By New Orleans.". philly-archives. 
  3. ^ Fred Musante, After Tobacco, Handgun Lawsuits, New York Times (January 31, 1999).
  4. ^ "CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REACHES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH Smith & Wesson". nara.gov. 
  5. ^ "HUD Archives: Agreement Between Smith && Wesson and the Departments of the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, Local Governments and States". hud.gov. 
  6. ^ "A Smith & Wesson FAQ". Reason.com. 
  7. ^ "The Rule of Lawyers". google.com. 
  8. ^ "Gotham Gazette". gothamgazette.com. 
  9. ^ "Roll Call Vote - 109th Congress, Vote 209", U.S. Senate. Retrieved March 7, 2016.
  10. ^ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 534", Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved March 7, 2016.
  11. ^ Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. "George W. Bush: "Statement on House of Representatives Passage of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Legislation," October 20, 2005". The American Presidency Project. University of California - Santa Barbara. 
  12. ^ NRA. President Bush signs Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  13. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-seek-repeal-protections-gun-manufacturers-420361
  14. ^ http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-gun/
  15. ^ John Diedrich. "As long-awaited trial opens, officers' attorney faults gun store sale". jsonline.com. 
  16. ^ NRA-ILA. "NRA-ILA - U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in Ileto v. Glock". NRA-ILA. 
  17. ^ Stephen Gutowski. "Judge orders Brady Center to pay ammo dealer’s legal fees after dismissing lawsuit". Fox News. 
  18. ^ "Brady Center ordered to pay ammo dealer's legal fees after failed lawsuit - Washington Times". The Washingtion Times. 
  19. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html
  20. ^ Bissell, H.J. Rolling Back Legal Immunity for the Gun Industry. Daily Kos, Jan 14, 2013.
  21. ^ Miller, Matt (June 15, 2015). "Jury says Rayco Sales wasn’t liable for Simone Kim's murder". KTOO. 
  22. ^ Alba, Monica (October 4, 2015). "Hillary Clinton Unveils Plan for Major New Gun Restrictions". NBC News. Retrieved March 10, 2016. 
  23. ^ a b Carroll, Lauren (October 16, 2015). "Clinton: Gun industry Is 'Wholly Protected' from All Lawsuits", PolitiFact. Retrieved March 10, 2016.
  24. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (October 13, 2015). "Bernie Sanders' Defense of His Pro-Gun, Pro-NRA Votes Was Absolutely Terrible". Slate Magazine. Retrieved March 10, 2016. 
  25. ^ Lidgett, Adam (October 14, 2015). "Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act: The Controversial Gun Law Bernie Sanders Voted For Has Kept Families From Winning Lawsuits". International Business Times. Retrieved March 10, 2016. 
  26. ^ Zorn, Eric (January 20, 2016). "Bernie Sanders Misfires on Gun Law Repeal", Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 10, 2016.