Talk:Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interpretation of importance[edit]

I deleted "showing that many Democrats were able to abandon (at least temporarily) their party's traditional support of anti-gun legislation in favor of this bill" because that interpretation is subjective and open to debate. We should leave it to the reader to determine what bipartisan support for the law means.

--151.203.24.205 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

Here are some sources I plan on using to expand this article (some are not RS, they are just used as reminders or because they contain tidbits I want to try and source) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the NRA a reliable source or best available source for gun control articles? How about Mother Jones? The Brady Campaign? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break[edit]

After years of mixed success in their efforts enact gun control via legislation, gun control advocates attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into implementing measures to avoid lawsuits that could put them out of business.[1] That ain't what the source says. C'mon guys, at least try to be neutral. Felsic2 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Munoz, S. Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? Media Matters, December 19, 2012.
Here's the offender: [1][2]. Really, really bad editing. Felsic2 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was 6 months ago, so things are a bit hazy, but based on some quick searching, it appears I was inspired in that wording largely from [3] . In retrospect, I agree the wording was too slanted. I note that in my edit summary for that opening sentence, I specifically said it could probably use some NPOV help. In the 6 months since, it has gotten WP:SILENCE. I have no objection to improving the wording now. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, If you look at the overall set of edits I made at the time its clear that those admittedly less than optimal edits are the exception rather than the rule https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act&type=revision&diff=686175050&oldid=685725897 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made a deceptive and knowingly POV edit and now you're saying that since no one caught it was OK, per WP:SILENCE. You took an NRA-ILA opinion and made it look like it was a statement by a liberal news analysis source. Since this was done just a day or two after your topic ban was lifted, "less than optimal" editing is less than acceptable. Felsic2 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a behavior complaint, bring it after you are autoconfirmed. But keep such things out of article talk, please. Not that it matters here, but Gaijin42 is an editor in good standing with a good reputation with most other editors, as far as I can tell (and certainly with me). Accusations such as these, outside the normal venues for such, are particularly unacceptable in such cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mandruss. Its actually at AE now. Felsic apparently forgot his password, so the autoconfirmed thing is a non-issue Gaijin42 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a complaint about an edit. This page is the right place to talk about edits to the article. The problem has now been fixed, no thanks to any of you. Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed interest[edit]

There is a line in this section that reads "Shortly after Clinton made this claim, fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability." Not only is that not precisely what Politifact says, but here is an Atlantic article taking the opposing position:

The Bush-era legislation immunizes gun manufacturers and gun dealers from civil liability for crimes committed with their weapons. It gives the gun industry a powerful legal defense that most other industries do not enjoy, and it creates disincentives about gun safety at the point of sale. [1]

The use of Clinton's specific phrasing seems to be there just to setup the politifact counter. And the counter isn't even that strong:

The act "is not the first federal law to grant a particular industry immunity from tort liability," said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, who edited a book on gun industry litigation.

Possibly the most analogous rule -- in that it protects a specific group of potential defendants from a specific liability theory -- is one that offers some immunity to online service providers, said John Goldberg, a law professor at Harvard University and an expert in tort law, in an email to PolitiFact. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks victims of online defamation from suing service providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like YouTube) for failing to monitor or remove defamatory posts uploaded by customers.

In a prior interview with NPR, Goldberg called the gun industry law particularly "aggressive" in terms of the liability protections granted. [2] --75.118.96.54 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/
  2. ^ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/16/hillary-clinton/clinton-gun-industry-wholly-protected-all-lawsuits/

Criticism section embarrassingly biased[edit]

This section is sourced exclusively from political advocacy and propaganda sources. Unless this section is balanced out with equally biased counterpoints, this section should probably be deleted, since the section is decidedly political and not encyclopedic in nature. 4serendipity (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this section is political advocacy and lists no provable facts, only conjecture. If a counterpoint cannot be drafted, this section should be stricken entirely WikiJohnS (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other manufacturers and dealers liable for criminal misuse? Which ones?[edit]

I was perplexed by the earlier edits (of 2022-03-02 11:51:31 UTC and 2022-03-02 11:56:01 UTC) that moved language describing general product liability to a section describing criminal liability. This is a strange change to make, especially unsourced! A good discussion on the details is offered by Cornell's Legal Information Institute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability

In a nutshell, product liability does not cover criminal misuse -- axe manufacturers are not taken to court over axe murders, there is no cause of action against Zippo when there is an arson, &c -- but rather negligent or harmful actions undertaken by the manufacturer. It is definitely not true that there is a difference relative to "other kinds of consumer products for which manufacturers and dealers are held responsible." because no such accountability exists, in general. The laws of liability and the details of the PLCAA are more complex than that and resist such a summary. solidsnack (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also the recent commentary on this point by the Associated Press[1]:

BIDEN, asking Congress to pass measures he said would reduce gun violence: “Repeal the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that can’t be sued, the only one.”

THE FACTS: That’s false. While gun manufacturers do have legal protections from being held liable for injuries caused by criminal misuse of their weapons thanks to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, they are not exempt or immune from being sued.

The law lays out exceptions where manufacturers or dealers can be held liable for damages their weapons cause, such as defects or damages in the design of the gun, negligence, or breach of contract or warranty regarding the purchase of a gun.

Families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, sued gun maker Remington, alleging “wrongful marketing” of firearms, and last month agreed to a $73 million settlement.

solidsnack (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "AP FACT CHECK: Biden's State of Union is off on guns, EVs". AP NEWS. 2022-03-02. Retrieved 2022-03-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act&oldid=1209887519"