By Larry Durstin
In 2005, at the beginning of his second term, George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA), which gives gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers almost unlimited immunity from civil liability lawsuits. This legislation — passed by a Republican-dominated Congress and backed by the NRA — resulted in the immediate dismissal of several lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors that were being litigated at the time and has been the basis for the dismissal of numerous subsequent lawsuits as well.
Now, with the gun debate reaching a fever pitch following the Newtown shootings, gun-control advocates are seeking ways in which to bring some sanity into America’s gun laws and, hopefully, put at least a dent in our country’s blood lust for weapons and violence.
To that end, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former federal prosecutor, is poised to introduce the Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, which would nullify PLCCA and insure that gun violence victims get their day in court. Under this proposed law, gun casualties would be able to take members of the gun industry to court for negligence or product liability. The act would also hold gun dealers accountable for selling firearms to straw purchasers (people who buy guns for those prevented from doing so) and gun traffickers.
Of course, no single piece of legislation provides a silver bullet to combat gun violence. And any attempt to ban specific firearms is generally shot down in a fog of politics and contradictions and loopholes and Catch-22s. So perhaps it’s time to turn the sole focus away from passing “anti-gun” laws and start doing something that’s as American as both cherry pie and armaments: Let the civil lawsuits begin.
Just as there are many of us who shriek to the high heavens that America is and always has been gun crazy, so too are there legions who squeal like stuck pigs over excessive litigation. Fair enough. But remember, the same Constitution that grants the right to bear arms also guarantees the right of the citizenry to seek redress in our court system. If, as the NRA asserts, people – not guns – kill people, it stands to reason we must hold those people who aid or abet a crime liable for their actions or inaction. And with this approach, there’s no need to pass “repressive gun laws” – all we need is the reasonable judgment of 12 duly appointed and impartial citizens to hold the guilty accountable and bring about at least a modicum of justice for the victims of gun violence and their families. The Founding Fathers would approve.
But the right to bear witness in court is not the only avenue individuals and groups have in the war on weapons. This is a battle that must be fought on numerous fronts with full-court pressure relentlessly applied by the citizenry and its elected representatives.
When the Moral Majority formed in the late 1970s – primarily in response to Roe v. Wade – it began a comprehensive and passionate campaign in local, state and national elections to elect candidates and pass initiatives that benefited its cause. No school board or city council election was too small to be targeted. The same is true with how the NRA operates. Gun-control advocates must be ready for nothing short of trench warfare for years and years on a variety of fronts if they hope to be successful. Because simply getting a grand piece of gun-control legislation signed with a backdrop of children and victim’s families will produce a feel-good photo op but will only mark the beginning, not the end, of the struggle.
Ultimately, perhaps the key to limiting the NRA’s death-grip on the American political landscape is turning the “reasonable” gun owners (who apparently strongly favor things like universal background checks) against the group. And since the intractability of the NRA’s position on issues like banning assault weapons benefits gun manufacturers and is fueled by paranoid propaganda that the government is determined to take your guns away so you can’t defend yourself against its jack-booted thugs, perhaps it’s time for the government and the rest of us to lean on “responsible” gun owners in ways that would make them re-think their devotion to the NRA.
If these “sensible” gun toters continue to Sieg Heil the extremists in the gun lobby – thereby making common-sense reforms all but impossible, then they shouldn’t be surprised that severe proposals, like drug testing all gun owners, start popping up everywhere. They also should be prepared for websites and other media outlets to start publishing the names and addresses of gun owners. Additionally, they should expect an explosion of investigative pieces (and Internet rumors and sleazy TMZ features) on guns shows, NRA leaders and anything and everything even remotely related to the underbelly of the gun industry. Isn’t that the American way?
Of course, there will be a seismic hue and cry regarding tactics like these. The NRA will wail that these maneuvers are proof that the government is plotting to confiscate all guns (something they say no matter what happens, so why sweat it?). There will be charges of invasion of privacy, oppressive litigation, surveillance, witch hunts, burgeoning fascism, biased media overkill, etc., etc.
The gun lobby will issue a blizzard of “I told you so’s” and the common-sense gun owners will be shaken. But maybe many of these well-meaning and responsible folks will wake up and realize that the greatest threat to the second amendment is the extremism of the NRA and the gun zealots. If reasonable reform is blocked by extremists and the sensible people just sit back and let it happen, sooner of later the boom will be lowered. It’s axiomatic.
The American people have been bullied by the gun lobby for generations – which is a major reason why we have 5 percent of the world’s population, 50 percent of its guns and innumerable bloodbaths on our streets. Like it or not, drastic times often produce drastic strategies. So let it be with the war on weapons. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
[Photo: Control Arms/ Andrew Kelly]
Larry Durstin is an independent journalist who has covered politics and sports for a variety of publications and websites over the past 20 years. He was the founding editor of the Cleveland Tab and an associate editor at the Cleveland Free Times. Durstin has won 12 Ohio Excellence in Journalism awards, including six first places in six different writing categories. LarryDurstinATyahoo.com
9 Responses to “It’s Time to Bear Witness Against Guns”
IndyCA35
What a pile of leftist crock!
Same old crap about the NRA “deluding” the “reasonable” gun owners.
As for publishing the addresses of gun owners, how about putting up a big sign in front of YOUR house saying, “Free pass for home invaders here, owner is unarmed.” Would you like that?
And where do you get 2000 homicides per day? Not from the FBI’s statistics. You just made it up. Another lie.
As for liability, it ain’t the manufacturer’s fault that a perp uses a gun to commit a crime any more than it’s GM’s fault if he uses a car.
The ones who should really be sued are the police in CT who took 20 MINUTES to respond to the Sandy Hook school calls. Which, by the way, is about an hour faster than the Cleveland, Ohio, police in my experience.
So you think that only the police and military should be allowed to have guns? Well, they’ve already tried that in Europe.
They even made a movie about it.
It’s called “Schindler’s List.”
Roldo Bartimole
Good piece Larry.
Snarky, you better buy a tank and heavier stuff if you think guns
are the answer to the government.
Roldo
Roldo Bartimole
My mistake, not Snarky, but Indy, the right winger.
Ray Kling
If you think smalls arms can’t be used to resist tyrants, you clearly missed the world news the past few years. More importantly, threats to freedom don’t just include the government. Today you feel safe and you don’t need gun, but in 100 years maybe your grandchildren won’t be as safe. Perhaps the government that provides your protection will have failed, and a new even come in the world. Having given away forever their right to secure their own freedom, they maybe powerless.
Once you give up your right to effective defensive arms, you give it up for all future generations, no matter what situation they face. The real fact are that amoung 312,000,000 Americans fewer than 400 are killed by any type of rifle each year. Firearms murders are sadly about 12,000 per year(from CDC). Defensive Gun Use estimates range from 50,000(anti-gun rebuttal of research), actual research puts them at over 2,000,000 per year. Even using the anti-gun numbers, you are 4 times more likely to be defended by a gun than to be killed by someone else with a gun. Gun laws simply don’t stop criminals. Perhaps if you could make all guns disappear, you could have an argument. However, even banning all guns would just get them out of the hands of the good people. The bad guys don’t really care if they are breaking one more law. The banned them in the UK and gun crime rates have increased(google it).
Ray Kling
Excuse, my few typos and spelling, posting from phone.
IndyCA35
It’s interesting that fewer than 400 Americans were killed by all forms of rifles in 2011 (the FBI says 323–look it up) but 300 Mexicans were killed by those lying skunks, Obama and Holder, with their “Fast and Furious” operation. It’s purpose was to illegally buy guns from stores in Texas and give them to Mexican drug lords in order to “prove” that we needed gun control. When they were caught, Obama stonewalled just like Nixon in Watergate, claiming executive privilege. This is not done.
When Biden says “Wouldn’t it be worthwhile if just one life weree saved,” the answer is, “Yes, it would be worth saving lives to put Holder in jail.”
Andre LeBlanc
Wow, I don’t even consider myself a gun-nut, but your article is fairly easy to pick apart. I expect though that you already know all the counter-arguments because this is such an old topic. Important and unresolved, but ultimately old.
“…the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA), which gives gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers almost unlimited immunity from civil liability lawsuits.” Keyword being “almost”. Gun manufacturers can still be taken to court, but not on what is probably frivolous charges. (However, frivolous lawsuits don’t appear to going away at any level of our court systems.)
Holding gun mfgs responsible for ill-deeds done with their product is akin to suing Ford because I intentionally ran you down. Or suing Budweiser because someone got drunk and killed someone in a fight. Or suing Oneida because you stabbed someone in the throat with your butter knife. If there is any claim of negligence and product liability to the mfg, it should be due to the product not operating in a fashion in which it is intended, or conversely, doing things that are not expected. If a gun operates as it’s supposed to for either a crime or self-defense, it functioned exactly as it was intended. There is no mfg negligence nor liability. If your Toyota unexpectedly has a “stuck gas pedal”, that’s unexpected and worthy of a possible lawsuit or mfg issued recall.
I agree that victims should have their day in court to face the accused. That still happens. When I get to sit across from the person that was drunk and ran into me, that’s my and their day in court. But trying hold Ford or Budweiser or Glock accountable for “aiding and abetting” or based on some twisted idea of mfg negligence…It’s illogical and a waste of resources and most everyone knows it. It also sets into motion precedent, which can make things worse for everyone down the road. If it was for something else that you aren’t as passionate about, you’d agree.
I think what you and many other ‘anti-gun’ people are missing is the part about personal responsibility. “It wasn’t my fault. I only shot that person because I was able to easily acquire a gun. Had I not been able to obtain the gun, I wouldn’t have been able to shoot anyone, therefore it’s not my fault!” C’mon…shut up and man up. No one forced you into that offensive position. You are responsible for your actions. Period. And unlike trying to apply personal responsibility to things like alcohol or drugs, I don’t believe that gun violence has ever been considered an chemical dependency, so there’s even less reason not to expect personal responsibility.
I like to believe that I’m a common sense gun owner. I believe that other common-sense gun owners don’t buy in to all the hype “the government gonna take our guns & ammo, so stock up!” That’s baloney. The only people squawking are the extremists and those that are lacking common sense. And you’ll have that in both anti-gun and pro-gun camps. Look, if the government tries to take everyone’s guns, they are simply proving a primary reason for the 2nd amendment! DUH! They can try and legislate gun ownership it just like they do morality, but they aren’t going to be able to convert everyone.
As a common sense gun owner, I don’t own guns because I’m planning on committing a crime. I own guns to protect myself, my family, and possibly to keep crimes-in-progress from escalating. I own guns because criminals most often choose targets where they know they’ll have the upper hand. I don’t expect violent criminals to exhibit common sense. “Well, I’m not going to have a gun on me when I break into that house or assault that person because that’s going to make the punishment more harsh.” If I or a member of my family is ever put into that situation, I prefer to have the upper hand. If not, I want our chances to be at least closer to equal.
Regarding the idea that someone will put up a website of all gun owners, that has already happened and it backfired on those that were trying to make a point. (Google “journal news gun permit”) Quite frankly, if my name shows up on a map of gun owners, that’s fine. It’s not much different than posting a “Protected by ADT” sign in my flower bed. However, I’m much more comfortable with a “Protected by Smith & Wesson” sign in my flower bed.
As for “common sense gun owners” and our undying dedication to the NRA, you are making broad assumptions. It would seem you see the NRA to be something like the Catholic Church. “Ohh, anyone who’s a member is brainwashed! We must destroy the NRA to free the people they’ve mentally enslaved!” As large a group as the NRA is, there’s all types of people within, just like the Church. There are extremists and there are those that are barely affiliated but still consider themselves under the umbrella. Neither the NRA nor the Church pays much attention to their respective extremists. The extremists may make the most noise and thus be the most visible, but they don’t speak on behalf of the majority.
And neither the NRA nor the Church actively promote violence. They promote personal responsibility and respecting your fellow man. And like it or not, they both have a huge impact on our Congress and the shape of our country, for better or for worse.
Andrew Ziebro
I thought Cool Cleveland was supposed to be about interesting events and happenings around time. What I see is radical leftist editorial after editorial from the likes of Durstin, Frazier, etc. Thank you for such an excellent rebuttal, Andre. Durstin’s article was so absurd that I literally couldn’t even think of how to respond. I’m unsubscribing from Cool Cleveland.
Andrew Ziebro
that should be “around town”