If you've been watching some of the debates, you've heard the claims that there's a law granting Special Snowflake legal protections to the gun industry. As the story goes, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act completely exempts manufacturers, marketers, and retailers from any sort of liability.
It's rare that we can call something an unqualified lie, but this is one of those cases.
During the late years of the Clinton administration, the Mayors of Chicago and Bridgeport decided to sue gun manufacturers for the damage inflicted by the criminal misuse of their products.
The whole mess culminated when Smith & Wesson, eager to avoid lawsuits, struck a bargain with the Clinton administration with a wide-reaching set of restrictions on the manufacture and sale of their products. The provisions of the agreement were to be, oddly enough, enforced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
(Spoiler: it didn't work out well for S&W.)
HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (yep, one and the same) declared triumph and used the threat of costly litigation to intimidate manufacturers, gleefully warning of "death by a thousand cuts."
The problem is this: they weren't suing the manufacturers for making defective products or for irresponsible marketing. They were suing companies for making guns.
In 2005, the PLCAA was passed to clear this up. It's not a blanket protection. There are still provisions under which suits can be brought for design or manufacturing defects, transfer of firearms in violation of existing law, breach of contract or warranty, or illegal marketing.
The bill does not create any new or special legal principles; it simply clarifies existing law as it applies to a specific situation.
So, why is it big news now? Because some folks are assuming the public has forgotten the toxic legal atmosphere of the 1990's, and repealing the PLCAA would allow the gun industry to be gutted without having to involve the legislature.
Right now, it's just an electoral talking point, but it's a misconception that we need to clear up.
It's rare that we can call something an unqualified lie, but this is one of those cases.
During the late years of the Clinton administration, the Mayors of Chicago and Bridgeport decided to sue gun manufacturers for the damage inflicted by the criminal misuse of their products.
The whole mess culminated when Smith & Wesson, eager to avoid lawsuits, struck a bargain with the Clinton administration with a wide-reaching set of restrictions on the manufacture and sale of their products. The provisions of the agreement were to be, oddly enough, enforced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
(Spoiler: it didn't work out well for S&W.)
HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (yep, one and the same) declared triumph and used the threat of costly litigation to intimidate manufacturers, gleefully warning of "death by a thousand cuts."
The problem is this: they weren't suing the manufacturers for making defective products or for irresponsible marketing. They were suing companies for making guns.
In 2005, the PLCAA was passed to clear this up. It's not a blanket protection. There are still provisions under which suits can be brought for design or manufacturing defects, transfer of firearms in violation of existing law, breach of contract or warranty, or illegal marketing.
The bill does not create any new or special legal principles; it simply clarifies existing law as it applies to a specific situation.
So, why is it big news now? Because some folks are assuming the public has forgotten the toxic legal atmosphere of the 1990's, and repealing the PLCAA would allow the gun industry to be gutted without having to involve the legislature.
Right now, it's just an electoral talking point, but it's a misconception that we need to clear up.