In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The law protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. The law was passed in response to a series of lawsuits filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s which claimed gun-makers and sellers were not doing enough to prevent crimes committed with their products. Proponents of the law argue that lawsuits will discourage gun manufacturers from supplying stores who sell guns that end up being used in violent crimes. Opponents argue that gun manufacturers are not responsible for random acts of violence committed with their products.
No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence
If it works, it works.
If a gun works as designed, the manufacturer should be cleared.
If a gun is sold to a valid applicant, the dealer should be cleared
If a gun is sold to a criminal and misfires, both should be held liable.
Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity
Wouldn't that become a blanket complaint against every product produced in this world? How would this only be applicable to gun manufacturing? The number of people purchasing with intent for illegal activity is a fringe market. This is not a question that is asked, nor would receive the correct answer, when purchasing the device.
Absolutely not. This is asinine and comparable to suing a hammer maker because you smashed your thumb. Even if someone smashed someone elses thumb, on purpose. It is not the fault of the tool maker. It is the responsibility of each person to handle those tools appropriately. Decisions come with consequences. Use a tool for harm, and that person should deal with those consequences, not a company who made it.
Firearms dealers should only be dealt with legally if they sold someone a gun without going through the proper process.
NO. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If we start suing legally acting gun manufacturers and dealers, then we should also start suing knife makers and car makers, because people are routinely killed by those items also. Let's get reasonable, people; reserve your lawsuits for the entities who actually deserve them: the people who committed the violent act in the first place.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But guns make it easier for people to kill people. Still, I agree. Manufacturers should never be held responsible, because they are following the law and doing everything correctly. If someone didn’t want guns to be sold in a certain way, they should change the legislation. It makes no sense to punish the person who made them.
No, the business that sold the firearm and manufacturer that produced the firearm did not use the firearm to harm the victim. The victim cannot hold the manufacturer accountable for the actions of a customer. That would be like a homeowner holding their contractor accountable for their child tripping down the stairs. It's ridiculous and wouldn't happen.
No, firearms manufacturers have NO control over how gun owners use firearm - and should not be held liable for things outside of their control. (Just like a car manufacturer cannot stop those who buy their cars from driving drunk.)
Gun dealers should only be held liable if they illegally sell a firearm to someone who uses that firearm to commit a crime.
Yes, but the business must have failed to conduct the proper background check and psychiatric evaluation into the individual -- which, if was properly conducted, would've reduced the chances of the gun violence incident
It's not a matter of suing the manufactures but the government outlawing the sale of certain weapons and also making background check a priority and also increasing the age limit of people who can buy fire arms.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion