Common-sense legal reform will stop "junk" lawsuits against firearms industry
NEWTOWN, Conn.-Congress today took a step toward restoring fairness and integrity to the nation's judicial system as the Senate passed a landmark bill to block lawsuits that seek to hold firearms manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their lawfully sold products.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397) will prevent wrongful civil liability lawsuits against law-abiding companies and end years of abuse of America's legal system by industry opponents. The bill was passed by a bi-partisan vote of 65-31.
A House of Representatives version (HR 800) has 257 co-sponsors and is expected to quickly pass. President Bush, who has promoted legal reform in order to protect America's economy, has said he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.
Since 1998 more than 30 municipal lawsuits have been filed against the makers and sellers of firearms by anti-gun organizations and anti-gun politicians. The misguided effort attempted to blame firearm companies for the illegal actions of criminals-the equivalent of attempting to hold a car manufacturer liable when a criminal uses an automobile in a crime. These illegitimate suits have cost the firearms industry hundreds of millions of dollars in legal defense fees and threatened to bankrupt companies.
"This legislation restores and reaffirms the common-sense notion that no manufacturer should be held liable for the criminal misuse of its products. We are pleased that the Senate has passed this important reform measure. No industry should be threatened by 'junk' lawsuits' based not on established legal principles but driven by extreme political agendas," said Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association representing firearms and ammunition manufacturers.
The bill provides protection for manufacturers, distributors, retailers and importers of all legally sold firearms and ammunition. "These lawsuits put thousands of jobs at risk and attempted to drive an entire industry out of business. Such abuse of our judicial system invited this historic legal reform," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF's senior vice president and general counsel.
Opponents of the bill attempted to scare the public into thinking it would no longer have the right to file civil liability actions, but the bill's language is very clear on the subject, allowing legitimate lawsuits to be filed against companies that sell defective products or against firearms dealers who break the law.
Even though 30 states have passed similar legislation preventing such lawsuits, the federal legislation will provide the full protection sought by the firearms industry and nullify pending lawsuits and prevent future illegitimate lawsuits from being filed. Among those cases nullified are New York City's suit and Washington, D.C.'s case, the latter filed under the onerous District of Columbia's Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act that, incredibly, assigns automatic and absolute liability to a manufacturer whose firearm is used in a crime in the District.
As pointed out by many elected officials, the lawsuits represented a serious threat to the industry that provides America's military with small arms and ammunition. "While many of these suits have been rejected in court, just one verdict for the plaintiffs could bankrupt our small industry and destroy those companies that arm our law enforcement and our military for defense against terrorism at home and overseas," said Keane.
Realizing that any industry, not just the firearms industry, could be the target of such harassing lawsuits, America's business community weighed in strongly for the bill, with letters of support coming from the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors, National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, United Mine Workers of America and other business groups and unions. The Department of Defense also encouraged passage of the bill because of national security concerns.
Several amendments put forth by opponents that were intended to "gut" the bill were defeated. Approved amendments included one introduced by Senator Herbert Kohl (D-Wisconsin) that requires firearms dealers provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with every handgun transferred to a customer. This is already a common practice, as nearly all new firearms are shipped from the factory with a safety device, so the new measure would apply mainly to used handguns. Two amendments sponsored by Senators Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) were approved. One allows children to bring lawsuits if they meet certain exceptions in the legislation. The other provides for harsher penalties for criminals who use armor-piercing ammunition against police officers. Another amendment clarifies that the bill does not hinder the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from enforcing firearms laws.
One allows children to bring lawsuits if they meet certain exceptions in the legislation.
This worries me. I wish they would have left out all loopholes, becasue any exception to the rule opens the door for abuse. I don't see why children need to sue manufacturers any more than adults.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Did everyone reading this notice that it was a BIPARTISAN bill?
I have been reading the political forums here tonight and I get a strong feeling of pro-Repubs, anti-Dems, etc. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that something as common-sense as this bill was indeed supported by both parties. Good to see the rational minds prevailing regardless of their party affiliations.
Nothing is ever one sided of course & somethings not to clear.Most of the antigun laws & restrictions have been sponsered by know anti gun democrats.Like fienstien who wanted in return for passing the above bill - a provision to reinstate the( so called) assult weapons ban- as a fair trade deal(some ppl here even liked that idea i think). I think you will also find most of these frivlious law suits where from mostlydemocrats & those citys bringing the lawsuits where democrat controled.
Why not just make those who bring such suits pay legal costs incured- or maybe a Rico law crime - like impeading a legal business with blackmail tatics?
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
ORIGINAL: Tazman
Congress and common sense????? Very scary![8D]
My thoughts exactly..... There has to be a hidden loophole or a catch-22 situation somewhere.... But all in all, it is EXCELLENT NEWS!! [8D]
Edit: It would figure "The Hildebeast" andSchumer of NY and Scary Kerry and the tipsy thug Kennedy from MA would vote "NAY". Check out who voted in your state....
SENATE PASSES LANDMARK LEGISLATION!
