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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Gun Liability
@9D4X9GT2yrs2Y
Remove restrictions on sales, but also hold any seller criminally liable as an accessory for any crime committed by customer+gun. Also permit sellers to obtain detailed deep background checks (including medical and psychiatric) of any customer.
@9W9LMN97mos7MO
It depends. No for manufacturers. However, dealers should be sued if they have knowledge that the individual they sold the guns to had mental problems.
No, unless the dealer/manufacturers were ignorant during the sale process and did not fulfill all training and evaluations on the purchaser of the gun.
@9T5DL6F8mos8MO
Manufacturers should not be held accountable for much, but dealers must be held accountable, as they sold the gun to the assailant.
@9S7BTW39mos9MO
Yes, if the firearms dealer never tested the buyer or any type of "safe selling" then yes absolutely
@9H5HBVY1yr1Y
Yes, however it would be more circumstantial. There are circumstances where you can't blame the manufacturers/dealers and circumstances where there is blame to place on the manufacturers/dealers.
@99ZTHWY2yrs2Y
Dealers may be sued if there is evidence of faulty background checks or they failed to follow the policies required to purchase a gun. Manufacturers only produce the weaponry and are typically not involved in such accidents.
@94DJLB93yrs3Y
Yes in the cases in which they didn’t do proper background checks. Their neglect can lead to death and massacre.
@937NLL63yrs3Y
No, but manufacturers and dealers should be forced to buy liability insurance on all weapons sold.
@92G86NB3yrs3Y
Yes, if the manufacturers fail to incorporate regulation before providing the gun.
@8YPGZ6S3yrs3Y
No, due to that fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Whether it's with a hatchet, a tomahawk, with a knife just like Cain and Abel. So if you're gonna sue firearm stores your wrong to do so because mine as well sue the artillery industry, the Military, the Walmart, the Bass pro because they all sell knives and 'guns'.
@8X7CJJR4yrs4Y
Only if the dealer sold the gun without doing a heavy background check on the individual purchasing the gun.
@8WK6BS24yrs4Y
If the dealer or manufacturer didn't do anything wrong other than sell and make gun, they shouldn't be held liable.
@8WF9BYF4yrs4Y
Yes, with cases with substantial evidence.
@8VWS9YG4yrs4Y
Dealer should sued if its an issue with the gun but if a victim from a gun would be towards the person who fired the weapon.
@8V9T39B4yrs4Y
Manufacturing companies while not entirely at fault, do sometimes advertise their products to be used for deadly for more so than defense
@8TV42CR4yrs4Y
They should 100% be liable and be sued if there was a mistake on issuing the gun illegally or without background checks on their part.
@8R8FY6L4yrs4Y
They should only be sued of the dealer/manufactures/business we negligence with the background check.
@8PLJPYM4yrs4Y
depends on circumstance. For example if it was a fault of manufacturing, yes. if you hurt yourself/ someone else out of you own stupidity then no
@8GW3DYH5yrs5Y
No, but the owner should be held liable and accountable since they own the product, not the dealer/manufacturer.
@8DYPM325yrs5Y
No, It isn't the fault of the company that made the gun that someone used it to shoot another person
@8DQSJCZRepublican5yrs5Y
Dealers, gun owners, and the person who used the gun should be punished. Dealers should be held accountable for selling it to someone that shouldn't have a gun in the first and also for not using and following the correct procedures. The person who used the gun should also be held accountable for their actions of using the gun illegally. Gunowners who let people that shouldn't be around guns to borrow their guns should also be held accountable since it was their gun, to begin with.
Yes, they should only be allowed to sue the dealers for negligence.
@8C6LGK95yrs5Y
no unless the dealers/manufacturers failed to do proper back ground checks
@8C5RJWC5yrs5Y
Yes but only if there is an actual cause of action. If there is no negligence or product defects, then victims should not be able ro sue them and recover damages for injuries
No! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
@985DQH52yrs2Y
The victims of gun violence should be able to sue the dealers if they weren't able to ensure that the gun sold was given to an individual that couldn't pass a background and a psychological test
@984SCFQ2yrs2Y
@97YVH2C2yrs2Y
If the dealer sold it to someone who was illegally purchasing it
Yes, if the weapon sold by the dealer was an illegal transaction, and if the death was caused by a manufacturing defect, then the manufacturer should be liable.
@97S6F4S3yrs3Y
I think that they should only be sue-able if the violence was committed with a gun obtained illegally (without meeting proper requirements).
@97RZD8C3yrs3Y
They should sue the person(s) responsible for selling it ileaglly
@96RTGNR3yrs3Y
they should be going after real criminals who actually committed the crime. not the manufactures and dealers
Yes, in only cases where there is clear negligence shown by the manufacturer or dealer. If there was a clear indication at the time of sale that the person in question was not eligible to receive a firearm.
Yes and no because it all depends on the situation
@8SB4TXL4yrs4Y
Depends on the situation..
@8MRHDFH5yrs5Y
Depends on the circumstances of their case.
@9V6MY4L8mos8MO
If the suspect was able to purchase a firearm with no permit, or with no extensive background check, then, yes.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
