Gun Maker Immunity Bill Back in the Spotlight
Looks like the NRA is again pushing for a bill to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits:
Emboldened by the results of the month’s elections, the nation’s largest gun lobby will push again for a federal law shielding gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits (sic*).
When the new Congress convenes in January, the National Rifle Association says, it will have four more pro-gun senators. The trade group hopes that will help make the difference in passing a bill that died in the Senate in March.
“The chance of success is greater this time,” said Bob Levy, senior fellow at The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
The idea of lawsuit immunity pits gun owners and hunters in rural areas against city dwellers often beset by violence. The NRA wants a law that would exempt manufacturers from civil lawsuits, except when they violate local, state or federal law.
While I am lukewarm on the issue, I support it for two reasons:
1 – These lawsuits are utter bullshit designed to bankrupt companies who are engaged in lawful activities.
2 – The push to pass it keeps these idiots busy. If they’re busy, then they’re not working on other asinine gun legislation.
As for why I am lukewarm on the issue, I think Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, after explaining the failure of these lawsuits, sums it up nicely:
Of course, the industry contends that costs of litigation have driven companies out of business and raised prices for firearms. Yes, that may be a problem; but unless and until Second Amendment rights are compromised, there’s no role for the U.S. Congress. After all, 31 states on their own have now banned municipal lawsuits against gun makers. Moreover, some dealers that were forced out of business for selling guns to known criminals would not have been protected by S. 1805 in any event. And if a manufacturer were to shut down, another gun maker would no doubt satisfy any unfulfilled demand. As for government lawsuits resulting in higher gun prices, the states have done far worse by imposing taxes and other regulatory burdens without a peep from Congress.
Ultimately, the message for our judges and legislators is twofold. First, courts must continue to reject bogus claims instigated by anti-gun zealots seeking to circumvent state legislatures. Second, Congress should keep its nose out of state tort law and reaffirm that our national government is one of enumerated, delegated and, therefore, limited powers.
* When did gunmakers become a word?
December 6th, 2004 at 11:18 am
Crap. Should’ve checked your blog first, before posting on the exact same article. 🙁
December 6th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
I disagree with you on one point. Poorly-founded tort lawsuits against manufacturers in other states are a federal issue. That is, if a biased judge and jury in Missouri (say) can extract millions of dollars from Ford (say) because it’s possible for idiots to make their Fords roll over, then this will also affect the production of cars in Detroit for sale to the rest of the states – and it affects every other car maker, since they can get sued in the same biased court. Even at the most restricted reading of the Interstate Commerce clause, Congress can (and I think should) act to prevent one state from thus harming commerce between the other states.
OTOH, I don’t particularly like to see this corrected for one product category at a time (e.g., medicine and firearm makers being protected while the rest of the economy is still exposed to bogus lawsuits), and I’d like to see a minimalist approach. What I’d most like to see is a law that allows sellers to “blacklist” certain localities, and that prevents any lawsuits against out of state sellers to emanate from a blacklisted locality. That is, if a certain county in Missouri has a record of ridiculous verdicts against car-makers, they can list their cars as not for sale in that county. People living there will still figure out ways to buy cars, but they can’t come back on the car companies about problems with them – until they fix their own courts and get off the blacklist. And the Chicago PD (for instance) might have to go to out-of-state gunstores to buy their fire-arms, and won’t be able to go to the manufacturers for training or parts, nor to sue them because somehow a gun sold legally in Indiana wound up in the hands of a criminal in Chicago…
December 6th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
Actualy the non government solution would simply be for the firearms makers to band together & case all sales to all governments until this mes is straightened out. But thta won’t happen for a few reasons.
I do have some federalism concerns over congress pushing for this; perhaps if it was only applicable to federal court? or suits involving companies from a differeing state than the suit was filed in.
But still, tort reform such as this is a goo dthing overall. it’s just a matter of making sure the details aren’t more poison than remedy.
December 7th, 2004 at 10:40 am
* When did gunmakers become a word?
Whatever happened to gunsmith?
For that matter, what ever happened to hillier, costermonger, wainwright or bluestocking? (check this site for the answers to those and many other occupational names)
Maybe we could call them piecemakers. Piecemakers making peacemakers.
Or roscoewrights.