By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
While the nation’s leading firearms trade association is giving high marks to the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts (SHOT) Act, introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to strengthen the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a vocal gun rights organization has issued a statement asserting the SHOT bill “badly misses the mark.”
In a statement posted at The Outdoor Wire, National Shooting Sports Foundation Senior Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said, “NSSF applauds Sen. John Cornyn’s leadership in introducing the SHOT Act to strengthen the PLCAA to close manufactured gaps created over time by misguided court decisions that have permitted frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry that a bipartisan Congress intended to prohibit over 20 years ago. This lawfare is supported chiefly by gun control activists, antigun politicians and large ‘white shoe’ law firms seeking to blame industry members for the criminal and unlawful misuse of legal, well-designed and lawfully sold products. These lawsuits are intended to bankrupt the firearm industry and impose gun control measures through litigation.”
The PLCAA was signed into law more than two decades ago by then-President George W. Bush. The law prohibits so-called “junk lawsuits” against gun manufacturers, distributors and retailers, which were filed beginning in 1999. They were designed to cost the firearms industry millions of dollars, but PLCAA—which was a bipartisan effort—outlawed the harassment legal actions.
Cornyn’s SHOT Act is aimed at making PLCAA stronger.
However, the Firearms Policy Coalition issued a statement, also posted at The Outdoor Wire, which argues otherwise.
“FPC firmly believes that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) must be strengthened to robustly protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of peaceable American gun owners and the critically important firearms ecosystem that serves them. Unfortunately, Senator John Cornyn’s SHOT Act (S. 4775)—in the form presented to FPC—badly misses the mark,” the group said.
NSSF noted that the PLCAA was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year when it rejected Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers in a case known as Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
“However,” NSSF noted in its release, “California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Washington and now Virginia have enacted public nuisance laws to allow these lawsuits under the guise of undefined ‘reasonable’ liability standards. Suing firearm and ammunition companies for the criminal misuse of their legal products is akin to suing a hardware store if a hammer it sells is used in a murder or a car manufacturer for one of its cars being used to purposely run down someone or in a fatal accident caused by a driver under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”
