Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act Passed

[rushmc 23]

From the NRA Site

Historic Victory For NRA
U.S. House Of Representatives Passes
The "Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act"
(Fairfax, VA) - Today the United States House of Representatives passed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) by a bipartisan vote of 283-144. The legislation now moves to President Bush's desk for his expected signature.
Commenting on the passage of this landmark legislation, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, "This is an historic victory for the NRA. Freedom, truth and justice prevailed, and today S. 397 is one step closer to becoming the law of the land. No other industry is forced to defend themselves when a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product. American firearms manufacturers will now receive the same fair treatment."

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" seeks to end predatory and baseless lawsuits initiated nationwide by the gun control lobby. These lawsuits sought to bankrupt a lawful, highly regulated industry by holding the manufacturers and retailers responsible for the unforeseeable acts of criminals. S. 397 passed the Senate in late July with a bipartisan vote of 65-31.

Joining LaPierre in commenting on this victory, NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox added, "Our judicial system has been exploited for politics and Congress put a stop to that. Passage of the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' would not have been possible without the support of the 257 House co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. We appreciate the tireless efforts of Rep. Cliff Stearns and Rep. Rick Boucher and the Republican members of House leadership who worked to move the bill in this chamber.

"We are a safer country today because Congress passed this critical legislation and acted to save American icons like Remington, Ruger, Winchester and Smith & Wesson from politically motivated lawsuits. Our men and women in uniform abroad and at home now will not have to rely on France, China or Germany to supply their firearms," Cox added.

During Senate debate earlier this year, the Pentagon stated its concern over the consequences if the American firearms industry was litigated into extinction. The Department of Defense stated that it "strongly supports" S. 397 citing, "that passage of S. 397 would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform."

"I would like to thank our members who played a pivotal role in making this bill a reality. Together, we have saved the American firearms industry and protected the sanctity of the Second Amendment," concluded LaPierre.


National Rifle Association of America
Institute for Legislative Action

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ReBirth 0]

good. General tort reform would be better, but you have to start somewhere.

[rushmc 23]

Well put! It is just a good start.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks 0]

why do we have to create laws to protect against frivolous lawsuits?


why cant we just make a law against frivolous lawsuits?

[ReBirth 0]

Because most politicians and lobbyists are lawyers. They're not going to pass laws that hurt themselves. The only reason this got through was because of the massive lobbying power of the NRA. But, like I said, hopefully it will kick start the ball rolling toward full tort reform.

[JohnRich 4]

Woohoo!

One concern: there was an amendment placed in that bill by the anti-gun folks, which would require that a gun lock be sold with every gun, effectively increasing the cost of a gun purchase. I wonder if that was stripped-out before passage?

I look forward to the apoplectic fits that the anti-gun groups will be throwing. Their misrepresentations and lies in response should be very amusing.

[rushmc 23]

The NRA had written about that amendment. They were not concerned either way as they said all "new" weapons were virtuly sold with them anyway and it would have little effect.

But to answer your question, I don't know yet.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One concern: there was an amendment placed in that bill by the anti-gun folks, which would require that a gun lock be sold with every gun, effectively increasing the cost of a gun purchase. I wonder if that was stripped-out before passage?

Welcome to California. I have a very nice collection of trigger locks. (If you own a gun safe, the requirement is waived)

[sinker 0]

Quote

I look forward to the apoplectic fits that the anti-gun groups will be throwing. Their misrepresentations and lies should be very amusing.

as they always are!

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The NRA had written about that amendment. They were not concerned either way as they said all "new" weapons were virtuly sold with them anyway and it would have little effect.

But to answer your question, I don't know yet.

A lot of used firearms are sold too. And if I trade in one gun for another one, I don't need a second lock - the one I've already got will do. They shouldn't force me to buy something I neither need nor want. My fingers are crossed that this amendment was pulled out.

[rushmc 23]

It has been tryed in the form of "looser pays" language.

This would make the looser of a civil lawsuit pay the leagal fees of both parties. In the few states that implimented this (before the lawyers lobbie got it stopped) it works pretty well.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

If that amendment pushes the issue to the level you post, I hope it got stripped too.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[justinb138 0]

Quote

effectively increasing the cost of a gun purchase. I wonder if that was stripped-out before passage?

I don't know, but the locks I've seen included with guns I've bought are generally the cheapest ones available. I don't think it would effect the cost enough to cause problems.

[ReBirth 0]

I think it's a fair enough compromise. Before we get our panties in a knot about it, how much cost does it really add? I'm sure you have the stats on hand somewhere

[Nightingale 0]

Well, seems like you should have a lock anyway, although I don't like the idea of making it mandatory. I bought a lock with my shotgun. I wasn't thinking about it at the time, and when the salesguy told me I had to get one, I was kinda thankful for the reminder, because it saved me a trip back to the store when I realized I'd forgotten it. It wasn't expensive at all, and wouldn't have affected my decision to purchase a gun.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it's a fair enough compromise. Before we get our panties in a knot about it, how much cost does it really add? I'm sure you have the stats on hand somewhere

Tends to add about $13. With the DROS and tax and other fees, you feel like you just left a used cars dealer with a $600 car that cost you over 700. I'd have to pull some receipts to see exact numbers.

If you just bought one gun, maybe a trigger lock isn't a bad notion. But a half dozen? Except for my Sig 226, which came with a style that fits in the case, the rest can be locked in their case, or locked in the open using the trigger lock. If you do the latter, or put multiples into one locked case, those trigger locks are just lame toys.

[ReBirth 0]

I agree..the locks are stupid, a waste of money, and it's pretty much useless to force people to get them.

But...like I said, it's not that big of a compromise for the passage of this bill. If it makes the anti-gun people feel better, so be it. I'm in the let's compromise camp, not the line in the sand camp.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But...like I said, it's not that big of a compromise for the passage of this bill. If it makes the anti-gun people feel better, so be it. I'm in the let's compromise camp, not the line in the sand camp.

The main concern is that the other camp has already made some attempts (some successful, I think) into requiring that the trigger locks not only be purchased, but used in the home. The dollar concern is pretty small - I wonder if we might even see prices go down with the costs of constant litigation gone.

There was an embarassing press conference for the governor of Maryland where he was unable to remove said lock in a timely manner.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

The main concern is that the other camp has already made some attempts (some successful, I think) into requiring that the trigger locks not only be purchased, but used in the home.

It'll never pass, and even if it does, the only time someone could be charged with violating it is if someone who shouldn't have been able to got access to their unlocked gun and hurt themself or someone else. If that's the case, lock or no lock the irresponsible gun owner should pay anyway.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

............ irresponsible gun owner should pay anyway.

Damn right. If they aggressively prosecute irresponsible gun owners, people would be more careful and lock up their guns. Being a deranged Vietnam vet, of course I sleep with a pistol under my pillow and it must be secured first thing in the morning (unless they are coming through the wire). edited for bad grammer

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well, seems like you should have a lock anyway, although I don't like the idea of making it mandatory.

I have locks already. I don't need the government forcing me to buy more locks that I don't need. I've got a pile of extras already that I don't use.

And whether or not I "should" have a lock should be my personal decision, not the government's.

While the cost may be small, that doesn't make it right.

[JohnRich 4]

It's a done deal - President Bush signed it into law!

That's odd, web sites like CNN and MSNBC don't even carry the story. Isn't that interesting...

Source: Washington Times

On a related note: Bill Would Punish Frivolous-Lawsuit Filers