User:WizBang/sandbox

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law enacted on October 26, 2005, which prevents firearms and ammunition manufacturers and dealers, and their trade associations, from being held liable for harm resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm. However, manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable under the PLCAA for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, their own criminal misconduct, the transfer of a gun they know is intended for use in a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, and other actions for which they are directly responsible, in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products can be held responsible. Gun sellers may also be held liable for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. The PLCAA also contains three provisions not related to civil liability: (1) the act prohibits the sale or transfer of a handgun by a licensed dealer to anyone who does not have a firearms license unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device; (2) the act creates penalties for using or carrying armor-piercing ammunition during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, and for possessing armor-piercing ammunition in furtherance of any such crime, in addition to the punishment otherwise provided for that crime; and (3) the act directs the U.S. attorney general to conduct and report to the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against body armor is feasible.

Purpose
The text of the law contains seven purposes. Among them are:
 * To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended, and
 * To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

Background
Liability protection for the gun industry in the U.S. has a long history. The first law in the U.S. to grant any degree of immunity to gun manufacturers was enacted by the state of California in 1982. The constitutionality of the California law was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2001. The case leading to the California Supreme Court’s ruling was filed by victims of a 1993 shooting who sued the manufacturer of the gun used in the shooting, claiming that the manufacturer had irresponsibly marketed the weapon. The California Supreme Court found that the manufacturer and distributor of the product could not be held responsible for the actions of someone who chose to use the product improperly. After years of unsuccessful attempts to legislate gun control, proponents of gun control attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into voluntarily implementing some measures to avoid lawsuits that could put them out of business. Along those lines, cities began taking civil legal action against gun manufacturers beginning in the late 1990s. Lawsuits against the gun industry by local governments became common after the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, filed the first such action in 1998. A total of 33 cities, counties, and states sued gun manufacturers prior to 2005. The grounds for these civil suits by governments were typically based on one or both of two claims: (1) gun manufacturers were knowingly marketing dangerous, poorly-designed products, or (2) gun manufacturers, through the widespread marketing of products with a well-known history of being used in crimes, were violating public nuisance ordinances, which increased the operational costs of a local government’s police department, fire department, and public health mechanisms such as hospitals and ambulance services. In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers saying "We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet". A spokesman for Daley indicated, however, that the purpose of Chicago’s lawsuit was not related to money by saying, “Chicago would not take a penny if we could just get handguns off the street.” Timothy Lytton, a law professor at New York University, echoed this sentiment by asserting that the goal of such lawsuits by cities was not to recover damages but instead was to bring about de facto regulation of the gun industry. In 2000 Smith and Wesson, facing... HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted...  Local governments were not alone in suing the gun industry prior to enactment of the PLCAA on claims related to the criminal activity of third parties. At least two lawsuits filed by private parties have been labeled as “success stories” by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. One such lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center against gun manufacturer Bushmaster and a gun store called Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply after John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 17 people and injured seven on a nine-month crime spree in 2002, including three weeks of highly-publicized sniper shootings in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. in October that killed ten and wounded three. The case was settled in 2004 when Bushmaster and Bull’s Eye agreed to pay $2.5 million in damages. The second case involved allegations that gun manufacturer Rossi, a gun distributor, and a gun dealer were liable because a gun was sold to a gun trafficker who was a user of illegal drugs, leading to the death of a child who was subsequently shot with the gun in question. According to the Brady Center, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that this latter case was settled in 2004 for an amount of $850,000.