The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which is the United States law that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held accountable for the crimes committed with the use of their sold products. In 2005, the act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The policy was designed to provide the corporate gun industry protections from the law and public blaming them for gun crimes. However, by taking away the victims of gun crimes ability to sue these gun manufacturers, it took away the importance of litigation working as a tool for regulation. By making gun manufacturers immune to repercussions of their shortcomings when dealing firearms, the PLCAA policy does not …show more content…
The selling of firearms is absolutely a public health concern, and it is a shame the public cannot bring justice to these dealers when they are hurt by their products. It is wrong that gun dealers get to make a profit by selling to criminals, without any repercussions. It should be emphasized, not all gun dealers are irresponsible or negligent, but a few are. These gun dealers and manufacturers fear being put out of business, due to lawsuits, which is the whole reason they lobbied for this policy to pass back in 2005. Jacob S. Sonner touches on this subject in his article, Crack in the Floodgates: New York's Fourth Department, the PLCAA, and the Future of Gun Litigation after Williams v. Beemiller. The Williams v. Beemiller case centered around a 16-year-old basketball star, Daniel Williams, who was shot and severely wounded in 2003 by a firearm that was purchased through negligent firearm dealing. Sonner writes on the important firearm case, “If the plaintiff wins this case, it will open the floodgates of [gun] litigation. Trail lawyers will go crazy. They’ll bankrupt the gun industry” (Sonner 969). A threat of this magnitude, litigation, would definitely change the gun industry for the better. The gun dealers who are not following the rules should be held accountable for their misconduct, unfortunately it is hard to punish a business without litigation and the ability to
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which is the United States law that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held accountable for the crimes committed with the use of their sold products. In 2005, the act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The policy was designed to provide the corporate gun industry protections from the law and public blaming them for gun crimes. However, by taking away the victims of gun crimes ability to sue these gun manufacturers, it took away the importance of litigation working as a tool for regulation. By making gun manufacturers immune to repercussions of their shortcomings when dealing firearms, the PLCAA policy does not …show more content…
The selling of firearms is absolutely a public health concern, and it is a shame the public cannot bring justice to these dealers when they are hurt by their products. It is wrong that gun dealers get to make a profit by selling to criminals, without any repercussions. It should be emphasized, not all gun dealers are irresponsible or negligent, but a few are. These gun dealers and manufacturers fear being put out of business, due to lawsuits, which is the whole reason they lobbied for this policy to pass back in 2005. Jacob S. Sonner touches on this subject in his article, Crack in the Floodgates: New York's Fourth Department, the PLCAA, and the Future of Gun Litigation after Williams v. Beemiller. The Williams v. Beemiller case centered around a 16-year-old basketball star, Daniel Williams, who was shot and severely wounded in 2003 by a firearm that was purchased through negligent firearm dealing. Sonner writes on the important firearm case, “If the plaintiff wins this case, it will open the floodgates of [gun] litigation. Trail lawyers will go crazy. They’ll bankrupt the gun industry” (Sonner 969). A threat of this magnitude, litigation, would definitely change the gun industry for the better. The gun dealers who are not following the rules should be held accountable for their misconduct, unfortunately it is hard to punish a business without litigation and the ability to