Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act instead of banning assault weapons.

[gulliver]

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 greatly restricts the rights of Americans to seek damages from gun manufacturers and dealers in court. I would say repealing that law might do a lot more to solve the gun problem than attempting to ban assault weapons.

For one thing, there would be no need to define what an assault weapon is. We wouldn't have this whack-a-mole game with the gun industry thinking up technicalities to get around the assault weapons ban. We wouldn't have all these subtle issues like magazine capacity to try to encode. The NRA, for its part, would not have a myriad of state and federal "restrictions" to exaggerate and use to stampede people to the polls for Republicans.

Second, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would expose other types of gun possession and ownership to proper levels of liability. Gun dealers and owners would no longer be able to sell just any gun, gun accessory, or ammunition to just anyone without managing financial risk.

What would happen if the law were repealed? Imo, guns would not completely go away, even "assault rifles," although ownership levels of weaponry of all kinds (assault weapons, perhaps much more than others) would drop dramatically. A huge "gun insurance industry" would likely spring up, and there would be a near-unanimous demand for a thorough system of dynamic, continuous background checking.

The gun industry, dealers, and owners would be at the front of the line clamoring for effective background checking to minimize insurance costs. It wouldn't be merely "point of sale," one-time background checking but would be more like a continuously updated "gun trustworthiness check" similar to our current financial credit checking systems.

If you want to sell even a single cartridge, your gun insurance policy would likely require you to run a background check on the buyer to ensure that the buyer were insured. The buyer's insurance company would either allow or prevent the sale, because they, not the seller's insurance company would be assuming liability for the buyer. Selling to an uninsured buyer would put the seller at risk of essentially unlimited lifelong financial liability. Even criminals would think twice.

Many gun owners right now are probably reluctant to sell or give away their guns and ammunition. They may not want the legal or moral responsibility of keeping weaponry in circulation. If gun purchases and sales, through the power of capitalism, were made far less risky, these gun owners could rid themselves of their weaponry without worrying they were circulating a future murder weapon. Or, better, the government, in the interest of public safety, could institute ongoing, permanent buyback or voluntary disposal programs.

Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act might, imo, put ever forceful "money motivations" on the right side of the gun risk management argument for a change. It might be much more effective than an assault weapons ban at eliminating the proliferation of assault weapons. It might also help settle the "gun issue" that Republicans and the NRA now use to divide the American people.

[RainCaster]

1. Let's do both

Instead of a few laws to define what is an illegal weapon, let's have a few laws to define what is legal.
* smart gun features
* maximum muzzle velocity
* max bullet weight
* max number of rounds in a non-removable magazine
* minimum firing cycle time

[Control-Z]

2. Yes. Let's do both. eom

[Mike_DuBois]

3. Smart gun feature remains in realm of science fiction I'm afraid

Really think a biometric lock would be great idea. Hope someone's researching it.

Bullet weight is already regulated. Dunno what regulating velocity might do.

Def like having a governor on the cyclic rate of fire

[gulliver]

6. The factors you list would impact the cost of gun insurance strongly.

"Smart gun features" would cut the cost of insurance. That effect would likely increase the incentive to develop effective, ubiquitous smart gun features, in my opinion.

Higher maximum muzzle velocity, bullet weight, magazine capacity, and minimum firing cycle time would figure into the risk of owning or selling (transferring in any way, including giving) guns. Lawsuits, including class action lawsuits (that are currently blocked under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) would succeed, raising liability costs, perhaps to unsustainable levels for some of the factors in your list.

[RainCaster]

18. You say that like it's a bad thing

Why should my taxes pay for the expensive destruction of assault weapons? Let those who own them, pay for it. The mandatory insurance that I would need for my bolt action rifle would be far less than what is paid by the owner of an AK.

[gulliver]

19. I didn't mean it that way...it's a good thing.

Big Bloom County fan, btw!

[DVRacer]

4. And that would work how?

The victims in Colorado had to pay for attorneys fees after their attempt to sue. Even without the law you would still have to face the fact lawsuits are expensive and judgment for fees when you lose are even worse. Would you advise anyone to sue Ford in a dui case because that would be the same outcome. A tort claim against a manufacturer due to someone’s intentional act is a looser all day long. What would happen is all the manufacturers would put together a very high priced and effective defense team and bankrupt people who think they will win because others want them to win so badly. After loosing the Aurora case the people that encouraged them to sue walked away and left them with the bill.

[gulliver]

5. You seem to be arguing strongly for my point if I understand correctly.

I'm arguing that we should remove a law that that purposefully takes away the American Peoples' options for legal recourse. There can be no justification for that law. You seem to be saying that previous attempts at lawsuits have lost, citing the Aurora case as an example. But those cases would be easier to win if the law weren't there.

[George II]

13. I just don't understand the car / gun analogy, never could. Cars aren't designed to kill....

...or destroy anything, they're designed to transport people.

Guns are designed to kill people or animals, or destroy targets (for those who speak of the target shooting aspect)

The gun manufacturers are fully aware of what their products can do. The analogy I would use is the tobacco industry, where they kept their research and the fact that their cigarettes killed people secret for a long time. But once it came out that they knew their cigarettes causes all sorts of diseases the lawsuits started flowing and the tobacco industry started paying.

In the case of guns, there's nothing to keep "secret" - it's all out there and it's no secret that guns kill people.

[hack89]

7. You would make the NRA a fortune

Considering they already a major player in the gun insurance business. Imagine a world where the NRA gives massive discounts to members. Two huge revenue streams to buy politicians.

The reality though is that insurance companies already know the risk. There are good reasons why they don't care about my safe full of guns but wanted to know what type of dog i owned. Insurance for my guns costs a pittance. You will make it even cheaper by enormously expanding the risk pool.

[gulliver]

10. The NRA was behind enacting the law in the first place.

So, no, the NRA would not make a fortune. Either that or you are arguing that they are deliberately behind a law that keeps them from making a fortune.

Insurance for guns makes sense, partly for compensating those damaged by guns, and partly because the expense of successful lawsuits will drive safety features, effective background checks, and a disincentive to own high risk weapons (as determined by juries in private and class action lawsuits).

[hack89]

12. Yes - to protect the gun industry

have to protect the hand that feeds you first.

The PLCAA actually allows for law suits in the case of negligence, poor design, shoddy workmanship, and violation of state/federal laws. What the PLCAA says is that if all the laws are followed then gun manufacturers can't be sued for the actions of a third party. Just like you can't sue Ford or Coors if a drunk driver harms you.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that the most violent elements of society won't purchase it - you expecting all those criminal illegal gun owners to obey this law and none of the rest?

Another issue is that no insurance company will pay out for illegal acts. They are not stupid - no business would leave themselves liable for paying out for another Sandy Hook or Las Vegas. As a matter of fact, post-Sandy Hook, insurance companies started adding language to their policies to ensure there was no doubt. So with the exception of true accidents, people damaged by guns will not get anything.

[gulliver]

14. Criminals wouldn't be required to purchase insurance, of course.

An insurance company wouldn't insure them anyway. I wouldn't be making an argument that weak, obviously. You may have found a fundamental flaw in a straw man argument that you've misunderstood to be my argument.

Insurance companies deal with numbers and those numbers, as you noted earlier, actually favor the profitability of law abiding gun ownership at low cost due to pool size. That profitability would drive insurance industry jobs. Avoiding loss would lead to strong pressure to reduce gun misuse risks. That seems like a good thing to do.

I don't see how anyone can be for the law in question. It's not the business of an NRA to push through a law to take away the financial recourse of the American People and force them to bear the psychological and financial burden of other people's gun misuse. We're simply removing a law, not enacting any.

Something needs to be done, and I would argue getting rid of the PLCAA would be a giant step in the right direction. Might even break up this ridiculous wedge issue and get us back to talking about climate change and making the most out of the potential of our people in this country.

[Jake Stern]

8. When I was struck (and nearly killed by) a drunk driver

One of the first things my attorney made clear was that I couldn't sue the vehicle manufacturer or the dealership that sold Mr. Drunk Driver his vehicle.

Why? Because he used an otherwise legal product in an illegal way.

Unfortunately Organizations and lawyers looking for big bucks sued despite this age old legal doctrine. PLCAA enshrined into law, for firearms, the same protections other products get when used in an unlawful manner.

Should T-Fal be sued if someone uses one of the knives it makes to murder someone? Should Serta be sued if someone uses a pillow to suffocate someone? How about the Circle K that unwittingly sold 5 gallons of gas to an arsonist?

You really want to help grieving families? Tell them to avoid groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety when they come around talking about lawsuits. They goad these families to sue gun manufacturers and then vanish when massive costs are assessed to the already distraught families.

On Edit: There is no similarity between tobacco and firearms. Tobacco companies spent decades trying to cover up how dangerous their products were. I've never seen a gun manufacturer hire a team of doctors to claim, under oath, that guns are not dangerous.

[Iggo]

9. The car that struck you wasn't designed to run people over.

[Jake Stern]

17. Doesn't matter

A firearm manufacturer is entitled to the same legal protections as the make of a vehicle that's used to run someone down or a knife that's used to stab someone to death.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. A: Where do the candidates stand on this and

B: the way to solve most problems is HIT EM WHERE IT HURTS

MONEY

law suits against the manufacturers of mass death could include the NRA as well...

Right now not only can you not sue but our govt cant even study guns or gun deaths. Wow, are we gonna put up with this?

[pecosbob]

15. IIRC there are laws that prevent the tracking of guns from the original seller

I feel that the large majority of gun retailers don't give a damn about who they sell guns or ammo. These laws like ag-gag laws were created to protect the gun retail industry from liability. These need to go.

[aikoaiko]

16. I'm OK with the PLCAA. Pass gun safety laws if thats what you want.

I can't support repealing the PLCAA.