Bush Signs "protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chipperman

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
4,572
Location
Essex Co, MA
http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=4228

PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"
LANDMARK NRA VICTORY NOW LAW

(Washington, DC) - President George W. Bush today signed into law the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support.

"This is an historic day for freedom. I would like to thank President Bush for signing the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law. History will show that this law helped save the American firearms industry from collapse under the burden of these ruinous and politically motivated lawsuits," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s executive vice president.

In late July, the Senate approved the measure 65-31. Last week, the House overwhelmingly passed the bill 283-144. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" was NRA's number one legislative priority and a monumental victory for the Association and its members.

"What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy," stated Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "We worked hard to change the political landscape to pass this landmark legislation. As always, our members were up for the task. Key electoral victories in 2000, 2002 and 2004 helped pave passage of this law.

"The Bush administration was a vital ally during debate on Capitol Hill. I would also like to thank Senators Larry Craig and Max Baucus and Congressmen Rick Boucher and Cliff Stearns for doing a yeoman’s job as lead co-sponsors of this legislation. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell ought to be commended for their steadfast leadership during Senate deliberations," added Cox.

In recent years, 33 states passed similar legislation outlawing frivolous lawsuits intended to bankrupt the gun industry. However, this new law creates judicial uniformity in all courts across the United States.

"This law will help preserve the American firearms industry and also help preserve American manufacturing jobs. American companies will cease to make products if they continue to be sued every time a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product. This is a significant step toward saving millions of manufacturing jobs," concluded LaPierre.
 
I believe the Constitutionality of this law is being challenged in New York state.
 
While I can empathize for an industry suffering from frivolous lawsuits, I do not think this law was the best way to handle it.

Banning an entire class of lawsuits, without considering each case on an individual basis, deprives citizens from the right to carry their grievances to court. I think the lawsuits should be allowed. If they are found to be without merit, then the plaintiffs attorneys should be disciplined, charged with legal malpractice, and required to reimburse the corporation for their legal expenses.

I also am not convinced of the Constitutionality of this law, and dislike the notion that one branch of government can prohibit the people's access to another branch.

Finally, why have we singled out the gun industry as the only industry that deserves this privelidge? If a drunk runs over my family member, I can sue General Motors if I want to for making cars that drunks can drive. However, if that same drunk shoots someone in my family, I can't sue a gun company for making a gun that drunks can shoot. Now granted, neither of these suits would appear to have merit, but why is it legal to sue the car company, but not the gun company?
 
coylh said:
Does anyone have the list of Senators that voted for it?
www.NRAILA.org Scroll down to "What's new", and "Victory in the Senate". Close to the end of the page, it gives you a link on all votes to amendments and final passage.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
While I can empathize for an industry suffering from frivolous lawsuits, I do not think this law was the best way to handle it.

Banning an entire class of lawsuits, without considering each case on an individual basis, deprives citizens from the right to carry their grievances to court. I think the lawsuits should be allowed. If they are found to be without merit, then the plaintiffs attorneys should be disciplined, charged with legal malpractice, and required to reimburse the corporation for their legal expenses.

I also am not convinced of the Constitutionality of this law, and dislike the notion that one branch of government can prohibit the people's access to another branch.

Finally, why have we singled out the gun industry as the only industry that deserves this privelidge? If a drunk runs over my family member, I can sue General Motors if I want to for making cars that drunks can drive. However, if that same drunk shoots someone in my family, I can't sue a gun company for making a gun that drunks can shoot. Now granted, neither of these suits would appear to have merit, but why is it legal to sue the car company, but not the gun company?
ONE reform at a time. This law does not protect manufacturers that produce faulty products. It puts a big dent in the anti-gunners using laws to bankrupt companies, that produce quality, LEGAL products. "Gun control by lawsuit" just took a big hit. AS IT SHOULD HAVE! By the way, anti-2nd Amendment politicians, were using tax payer dollars to force implementation of their views, by running businesses into the ground. If they want more gun control, they ought to be honest about it!! This NEVER was about individual citizens bringing a law suit. It was about the anti-gunners using the courts to get what they wanted, through a back door!!
 
Our nation is in dire need of tort reform. This bill is great, but it isn't nearly enough. The gun industry isn't the only one suffering under the weight of legal extortion. What we really need is a way to end frivolous lawsuits in general, not just those against the gun industry.

On the other hand, the gun industry is the only one I can think of that was targeted for political reasons. Most frivolous lawsuits are motivated by greed. So maybe this was a good first place to start.

Let's keep up the good work and get protection from frivolous lawsuits for ALL industries.
 
Let's keep up the good work and get protection from frivolous lawsuits for ALL industries.

The problem with this is, of course, the definition of frivolous. I do not think "frivolous" can be determined in any way other than on an individual basis.

How can we call a lawsuit frivolous unless the case is heard?

The best way to deal with this is by punishing plaintiffs attorneys in the same way we punish doctors who commit malpractice. Make the plaintiffs attorneys reimburse the company for legal expenses. Track the number of frivolous cases an attorney brings in a national data base like medical malpractice. When the number of frivolous cases gets high enough, disbar the attorney.

I would love to see frivolous lawsuits eliminated, but legislating them out of existence is not the answer.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
The problem with this is, of course, the definition of frivolous. I do not think "frivolous" can be determined in any way other than on an individual basis.

How can we call a lawsuit frivolous unless the case is heard?

The best way to deal with this is by punishing plaintiffs attorneys in the same way we punish doctors who commit malpractice. Make the plaintiffs attorneys reimburse the company for legal expenses. Track the number of frivolous cases an attorney brings in a national data base like medical malpractice. When the number of frivolous cases gets high enough, disbar the attorney.
Fine with me. WHEN do you expect the lawyers, that make up most of the legislative bodies, to pass YOUR solution?!!! ;)
 
The best way to deal with this is by punishing plaintiffs attorneys in the same way we punish doctors who commit malpractice. Make the plaintiffs attorneys reimburse the company for legal expenses. Track the number of frivolous cases an attorney brings in a national data base like medical malpractice. When the number of frivolous cases gets high enough, disbar the attorney.
OK, so let's pass a law that does just that. Or are you waiting for the trial lawyers to initiate those new rules all on their own??
 
Why.....

....are you worried about the constitutionality of this law? Are the anti-gunners worried about the constitutionality of them trying to take away our Second Amendment rights? Are they worried about the fact that these rights are Natural and Inalienable rights?
 
Lone_Gunman said:
Finally, why have we singled out the gun industry as the only industry that deserves this privelidge? If a drunk runs over my family member, I can sue General Motors if I want to for making cars that drunks can drive. However, if that same drunk shoots someone in my family, I can't sue a gun company for making a gun that drunks can shoot. Now granted, neither of these suits would appear to have merit, but why is it legal to sue the car company, but not the gun company?


Here's the difference:


Drunk kills your wife by driving drunk in a Chevy that was legally obtained, registered and has no design flaws, nor was advertise to be used in such a manner. You sue GM. Court decides your case is absurd, throws it out.


Thug kills your wife by shooting her with a Bushmaster that was illegally obtained, has no design flaws, wasn't advertised for such use. You sue Bushmaster. Court decides your case is totally valid, and punishes Bushmaster severely.


When it is a car, a basketball, a microwave oven - these cases are absurd and rediculously without merit - when it is a firearm, something cosmic, something magical happens where all of a sudden it's the firearm manufacturers fault.

What's their fault? Making firearms - that's their fault. They are guilty of simply creating weapons that eventually are used in illegal ways.

Making cars - innocent, honarable, needed.
Making guns - uneccessary, dispicable, dangerous.


Because of this discrimination - firearm manufacturers deserve this protection. They are entitled to it. For other industries are protected by the courts through reason and rationality, while the firearm industry is not, due to bias, agendas, and political motives. This is not unconstitutional, but rather VERY constitutional, as this is a postive and enumerated power of government to act on our behalf and to do its constitutionally mandated duty of protecting our rights and our commerce.
 
How is it unconstitutional? A breach of the separation of powers?

First, let me say I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. I have seen people justify it under the broad umbrella of "interstate commerce". It seems like if no other justification for something can be found, someone mentions interstate commerce, and suddenly the federal government can do anything it wants.

I do think it raises consitutional issues. Remember also that one man's frivolous lawsuit is another man's legitimate lawsuit.

If the legislative branch has the power to ban these "frivolous lawsuits", then really they have the power to ban all lawsuits.

The 7th Amendment of the Bill of Rights says.. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"

What part of shall be preserved don't you understand?
 
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman said:
The best way to deal with this is by punishing plaintiffs attorneys in the same way we punish doctors who commit malpractice. Make the plaintiffs attorneys reimburse the company for legal expenses.

50/50 is good odds in Vegas, not in a court room. The new legal defense will be to always out spend the plaintiff, to the extent that the risk of loosing is not worth proceeding. This brilliant idea does one thing, it keeps the poor with legitimate cases out of court.
 
The new legal defense will be to always out spend the plaintiff, to the extent that the risk of loosing is not worth proceeding. This brilliant idea does one thing, it keeps the poor with legitimate cases out of court.

If the defending attorney runs up the tab intentionally to circumvent the law, then that would in itself be an ethics violation, and subject the lawyer to punishment by the bar.
 
The cost of responding to a lawsuit is the punnishment that the gun banners foist upon the firearms industry for making a legal product. It does not matter who wins. The gun banners expect to lose. They have sufficient money that they can bankrupt the US firearms industry with frivolous suits.

Many of these suits have been filed using your tax dollars, by local governments. They are seeking to control interstate commerce in firearms by suing manufacturers in other states. Sort of like individual states assessing tarriffs on goods produced in other states.

That is a federal power in the Constitution.

When you sue GM they have a legal department whose annual budget exceeds the annual income of the entire US fireams industry. Lawyers dont sue them over drunken drivers becuase GM has the money to fight the lawsuits and win a war of attrition. Leftist Politicians dont sue them because Union members vote for lefties. Not a good idea to destroy the livelihood of your constituentcy. Cars are also viewed by most as a necessity, while guns are not.

Its in the national interest to have a viable domestic firearms industry for reasons of national security.

This law prevents a bunch of left wing fruit loops from putting the industry out of business, or forcing it to move to a foreign country.

What do you suppose would happen if say a group of peace loving left wingers decided to sue Northrop, Boeing etc over making warplanes, bombs, and cruise missiles, which have been "specifically designed to kill innocent people", on behalf of innocent Afghan, and Iraqi civilians who have been killed by the bombs and planes they make???? What if this was done in order to drive them out of business so Uncle Sam could not buy military hardware??????

The government would pay their legal fees or the same type of law would be passed to protect them because having a viable defense industry is in the vital interest of the United States.

Small arms are just as important.;)


Looser pays would go a long way toward fixing the tort system in this country. Unfortunately the trial lawyers have many of our represenatives in their pockets, or our reps are trial lawyers (John Edwards example) so it will never pass. The trial lawyers will allow a limited carve out protecting one industry, especially one that does not have the potential to be a big money maker for them, to pass.

Besides the law does NOT prevent you from suing a gun manufacturer, if they were negligent, committed a criminal act, or produced a defective product.

So its not removing your right to sue a firearm manufacturer, just raising the burden of proof a bit to prevent lawsuits from being used as a form of gun control.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
If the defending attorney runs up the tab intentionally to circumvent the law, then that would in itself be an ethics violation, and subject the lawyer to punishment by the bar.

Jurisdiction shopping is also unethical (filing class action suits in states where winning is more likely, even though said state does not represent the majority of the plaintiffs)

The "bar" has been so concerned with ethics that its forcing legislatures to take there business away. That's one group that knows how to enforce ethics and look for its own survival.:rolleyes:
 
Jurisdiction shopping is also unethical (filing class action suits in states where winning is more likely, even though said state does not represent the majority of the plaintiffs)

Yes and the congress just passed a law which Bush signed, that prohibits jurisdiction shopping. But I dont hear the whinning about how this hurts the littleguys right to sue, that I hear about the Firearms protection bill. Yet this other law certainly affects way more folks right to sue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top