What would the gun liability bill actually do?

[MEBuckner]

The issue of limits on lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers is once again in the news. Most of the news stories include a fair amount of “one side says, but the other side says” journalism; from that CNN.com article:

Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability or breach of contract suits under the bill, Craig said.

Gun opponents say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes allow the weapons to get into the hands of people the law says shouldn’t have them.

And from this article on Infozine.com:

“This legislation would make it the only industry in America immune to civil negligence,” [Brady Campaign President Mike] Barnes said. “If they did something negligent, shouldn’t they be held liable?”

vs.

Congressional supporters of the bill say it will protect the gun industry but also retain individuals’ rights to seek litigation in cases of negligence, [Dan] Whiting [communications manager for Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho] said.

This Washington Post editorial claims that the bill would have blocked a successful lawsuit against Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply for negligently selling a rifle to the Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. This Philadelphia Inquirer editorial also says that the bill would “shield gun-makers and dealers from negligence lawsuits”. (Some of those links will probably require free registration.)

It seems as if one side or the other isn’t being truthful here, and the “one side says, but the other says says” style of journalism isn’t very helpful in sorting things out.

I believe this is the text of the bill currently under consideration. IANAL (lawyer or legislator), but if I’m following the wording of this bill correctly, lawsuits arising from violations of the law by gun dealers or negligence on the part of gun dealers in providing weapons to people who shouldn’t have them would specifically still be allowed (as would lawsuits against a gun manufacturer whose products blow up when you pull the trigger or something like that). However, I may be missing some arcane legal point about the meaning of “negligent entrustment” or the definitions contained in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code.

I’m actually interested in as factual an answer as possible, but I figure I’ll save myself the effort of inevitably moving this over from GQ. However, before this turns into a general debate on the right to bear arms, the meaning of the Second Amendment, the merits of gun control, or the wisdom of keeping guns for self-defense (or on federalism or tort reform, for that matter), I would like to hear some informed responses as to what this bill would actually do. If some of our resident lawyers could weigh in, I’d especially appreciate it.

[Renob]

I’m not a lawyer, but I did work on Capitol Hill and tangentially with this legislation in its previous incarnation.

You may want to check out the Senate Republican Policy Committee’s analysis of the bill (http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L16GunLiabilityJuly2605SD.pdf). Sure, it’s a Republican organization that supports the bill, but their analysis is very lawyerly and quite trustworthy.

Essentially, those who say this bill would prevent lawsuits against those who sell guns to those who shouldn’t have them or that it will prevent lawsuits against gun manufacturers who sell defective products are simply mistaken. This bill would prevent lawsuits against gun manufacturers when a third party criminally uses one of the guns they manufactured. So if a criminal steals a Baretta and shoots a cop, the cop’s family couldn’t sue Baretta. However, if someone purchases a Baretta that blows up in his/her hand, then Baretta could be sued. Likewise, if a gun dealer sold a gun to someone who was not a prohibited person and then that person used the gun in a crime, the gun dealer could not be sued. However, if the gun dealer sold a gun to a prohibited person and that person commited a crime, then the dealer could be sued.

From the RPC report:

The definition of “qualified civil liability action” then excludes five categories of lawsuits from coverage under S. 397. Thus, these exclusions preserve the viability of the following kinds of lawsuits.
— Excluded is “an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title
18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly
harmed by the transferee’s conduct.” See § 4(5)(A)(i).
— Excluded is “an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence
per se.” See § 4(5)(A)(ii). “Negligent entrustment” is defined in § 4(5)(B) as “the
supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.”
— Excluded is “an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly
violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” See § 4(5)(A)(iii).
This exclusion includes cases involving knowingly making false entries in legally-required
purchase records or making other false statements relating to sales, and aiding in the
purchase of a firearm by a person legally barred from doing so.
— Excluded is “an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase
of the product.” See § 4(5)(A)(iv).
— Excluded is “an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly
from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a
reasonably foreseeable manner, except where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole
proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage.” See
§ 4(5)(A)(v).

[Renob]

Sorry for the formatting on the quote. I was copying from a .pdf file.
I don’t think you should consider this a case of “he said, she said.” Senator Craig wrote the bill. He knows what’s in it. The Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer do not have as much knowledge of the bill as he does. Brady Campaign President Mike Barnes should have better knowledge of the bill than it seems from the article you quoted. If he does, then he’s a liar. If not, he should refrain from commenting on the bill.

Senator Craig knows what’s in the bill. His assertions that the bill will do nothing to prevent suits in the case of negligence are truthful. The assertions to the contrary are either based on lack of information or they are lies.

[SteveG1]

I see it as part of the often denied Slippery Slope, along with the idiotic “bullet serial number” nonsense in California. It is an attempt to stop all guns at all costs, by any means necessary. If there is a crime, the criminal should be punihsed, and that’s as far as it should go. What would be next? Sue thhe makers of kitchen knives for stabbings or hammers for bludgeonings? Sue Chevy for vehicular homicide? It is just another attempt by the anti-gun lobby to further interfere where they are not welcome.

If it were a case of suing a gun maker because a shoddy or defective gun killed a law abiding citizen by not working like it should (exploding barrel, inoperative safety etc) then sue the hell out of them. But not the way this law would work. It will be used to sue gun makers because someone “downstream” was a criminal. Colt, Ruger, Smith make guns. They sell them to gun dealers, who sell them to the general public. The buyer is screened through a quick background check. After that, if the buyer does something wrong, it’s the buyer’s fault. If he sells it to someone he knows is a criminal, it’s his fault. This shifting of the blame is anti-gunner tactics, to try and force gun makers to go out of business.