Why aren't gun stores held liable?
July 27, 2015 1:04 PM
This may sound simplistic, but how do gun stores and/or manufacturers avoid liability when there's a mass shooting?
I was reading this article today about the aftermath of the shootings in Lafayette, Louisiana. The article indicated that the gunman purchased a gun in 2014 at a gun store even though he had been flagged in 2006 for mental illness. Here's the article.
This begs the question: how does the gun store avoid liability for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have had one?
By extension, how do gun manufacturers avoid liability when their product is used to maim, injure or kill? Other consumer products - cars, household appliances, and the like - have essentially been sued until forced to include more safety features. Why haven't gun manufacturers been sued to the point where they have to include safety features like biometric IDs or electronic locks?
NOTE: Please please please don't let this degrade and decay into yet another gun control vs. gun safety debate. Let's keep this civil. I'm genuinely interested in hearing from those with the legal knowledge and expertise to comment on the legality of this issue. Leave the politics out of this thread, please.
I was reading this article today about the aftermath of the shootings in Lafayette, Louisiana. The article indicated that the gunman purchased a gun in 2014 at a gun store even though he had been flagged in 2006 for mental illness. Here's the article.
This begs the question: how does the gun store avoid liability for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have had one?
By extension, how do gun manufacturers avoid liability when their product is used to maim, injure or kill? Other consumer products - cars, household appliances, and the like - have essentially been sued until forced to include more safety features. Why haven't gun manufacturers been sued to the point where they have to include safety features like biometric IDs or electronic locks?
NOTE: Please please please don't let this degrade and decay into yet another gun control vs. gun safety debate. Let's keep this civil. I'm genuinely interested in hearing from those with the legal knowledge and expertise to comment on the legality of this issue. Leave the politics out of this thread, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
posted by bondcliff at 1:10 PM on July 27, 2015
posted by bondcliff at 1:10 PM on July 27, 2015
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act specifically protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being liable for what anyone does with their products.
posted by theodolite at 1:10 PM on July 27, 2015
posted by theodolite at 1:10 PM on July 27, 2015
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, from 2005.
Although some are still trying. The victims/families of Sandy Hook are suing the manufacturer and the store.
posted by specialagentwebb at 1:12 PM on July 27, 2015
Although some are still trying. The victims/families of Sandy Hook are suing the manufacturer and the store.
posted by specialagentwebb at 1:12 PM on July 27, 2015
Just to add to the chorus of "PLCAA!" and address your point that "Other consumer products - cars, household appliances, and the like - have essentially been sued until forced to include more safety features." From that Wikipedia link:
However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.posted by Etrigan at 1:21 PM on July 27, 2015
he article indicated that the gunman purchased a gun in 2014 at a gun store even though he had been flagged in 2006 for mental illness
If the store had not followed the proper procedure for background checks, etc then they could potentially be liable in some way.
But according to the article, he was denied a concealed carry permit in 2006, but the standards for that are not necessarily the same as for gun purchases. So it's not clear that the background check wasn't done, it seems like maybe he passed Louisiana's bar for gun purchase but not for concealed carry.
(Jindal's comments about gun laws would also seem to indicate this).
If the store followed the law but the system either allowed the purchase or the government system itself missed his prior issues, then I don't see why the store would be liable, only if they themselves sold the gun illegally and there is no indication they did.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:27 PM on July 27, 2015
If the store had not followed the proper procedure for background checks, etc then they could potentially be liable in some way.
But according to the article, he was denied a concealed carry permit in 2006, but the standards for that are not necessarily the same as for gun purchases. So it's not clear that the background check wasn't done, it seems like maybe he passed Louisiana's bar for gun purchase but not for concealed carry.
(Jindal's comments about gun laws would also seem to indicate this).
If the store followed the law but the system either allowed the purchase or the government system itself missed his prior issues, then I don't see why the store would be liable, only if they themselves sold the gun illegally and there is no indication they did.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:27 PM on July 27, 2015
If someone buys a knife from Cabela's and uses it to stab someone, should Cabela's be held liable?
There is a rule, not always observed, that another person's misuse of a product is not actionable as to the person who sold it to him.
posted by megatherium at 2:03 PM on July 27, 2015
There is a rule, not always observed, that another person's misuse of a product is not actionable as to the person who sold it to him.
posted by megatherium at 2:03 PM on July 27, 2015
One of the lawsuits by victims of the Colorado theatre shooting against ammo manufactures was also dismissed. As others have said, the PLCAA controls.
posted by craven_morhead at 2:30 PM on July 27, 2015
posted by craven_morhead at 2:30 PM on July 27, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
A car manufacturer or dealer isn't liable if a person purposely drives a car into a crowd. Would you expect them to be?
posted by Confess, Fletch at 1:09 PM on July 27, 2015