this federal law passed in 2005 effectively blocks lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors for damages, injury and deaths caused by the firearms they sell to the public.
i did a cursory search of the internet because i don't have access to the paid legal web sites and found these three links which lay out the products liability theory blocked by such laws in the case of Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 28 P.3d 116 (Cal. 2001); http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/merrill-v-navegar-inc-32164; This California Supreme Court case predated the Arms
Act but essentially performs the same function protecting the arms industry from lawsuits:
...The Senate Analysis described the bill's "purpose" as follows: (1) "to protect manufacturers and sellers of firearms from being held liable in tort for selling or furnishing a firearm that was used to cause an injury or death"; (2) "to preclude courts from using products liability theories to hold firearm manufacturers and dealers civilly liable to victims of firearms usage"; (3) "to prevent the courts from extending products liability laws to hold a supplier of a firearm liable in tort to persons injured by use of the weapon"; and (3) "to 'stop at birth' the notion that manufacturers and dealers are liable in products liability to victims of handgun usage." (Id. at pp. 2, 3, 7.)...
Merrill v. Navegar, was a case in which a TEC 9 pistol was used to murder a large number of people in a single episode.
Another interesting document i found questioning the constitutionality of laws protecting the special interest arms industry from law suits was an amicus brief filed by public interest groups in an appeal filed by the city of New York which raised the legal arguments against eliminating citizen and government access to the courts without providing an alternative remedy. In my opinion, there is no question that the The Protection of Lawful Arms in Commerce Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and the fundamental right of citizens to have access to the courts for redress of injury:
AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE, EDUCATIONAL FUNDTO STOP GUN VIOLENCE, AND THE VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER SUPPORTING CROSS-APPELLANT CITY OF NEW YORK AND URGING REVERSAL ON THE DISTRICT COURT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RULING
Ironically the case style in which the brief was filed was Guilianni et al., v. Beretta et al.
http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/litigation/PDF/NYCvBerettaetal-LCAVetalAmiciBrief.pdf
...The Arms Act conflicts with these core constitutional principles because it
eliminates giant swaths of state remedies without providing any alternative avenue to those injured by the firearm defendants’ conduct. It thus mirrors the statutes struck down by the Supreme Court in Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885), and Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921), as violating the Due ProcessClause by the elimination of the “minimum” of judicial “protection for every one’s right of life, liberty, and property” which “the Congress or [a state] legislature may not withhold.” Id. at 332;...
Lastly, this is a link to a page put out by a law firm that reflects the kind of lawsuit against a manufacturer that may or may not survive these restrictions, the straight up mechanical defect that kills or injures people.
http://drinnonlaw.com/Texas-Defective-Firearms.php
i do not practice law, these cases are not shepardized, as they say in that business, but the theoretical and political ramifications of the Congressional legislation, it's fundamental unfairness and unconstitutionality are suggested by the first two links, in my opinion. The objective should be to get rid of the Arms Act.
= new reply since forum marked as read
