Should gun makers and gun sellers be legally liable when guns are used in committing crimes?

What is it about?

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both misunderstood or misrepresented what the US lawsuit immunity statute (the Protection of Law Commerce in Arms Act- PLCAA) is about. Both seemed to say that were the law repealed there would be a big increase in lawsuits. This is probably wrong. Clinton wanted gun companies held liable like auto companies, drug companies, tobacco companies, etc. But the lawsuits that gun control advocates want to bring (and at blocked by the law) are more sweeping than most current litigation. Still, a few might be won, and in any event , gun litigation is perhaps better seen as part of the political process.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Aggressive gun litigation in the U.S. largely disappeared after the adoption of PLCAA. Clinton seemingly made this an issue because it appeared to be one on which she was to the "left" of Sanders in the Democratic Party primary contest. Like many political battles, the rhetoric on both sides seemed off the mark on this issue. Still, at least Clinton tried to keep in play the desirability of being able to sue irresponsible gun sellers at least in some circumstances. Perhaps this perspective will re-gain political momentum if current lawsuits against irresponsible sellers of pharmaceutical pain killers are successful.