The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act...

... has passed the House. Alphecca has a good description of what it does (and what it doesn't). It's already passed the Senate. There shouldn't be a problem with Bush signing it, after which many of the lawsuits against firearms manufacturers will be dismissed. The case that I have been following, DC v Beretta, should be one of them.

UPDATE: Looks like the trigger lock requirement was included in this version. That's disappointing, since the version without that requirement could also have passed. The problem would have been time; reconciling the bills between the House and the Senate would have required more time, and more time means more legal costs defending the suits already in motion.

While I think the trigger lock and "armor-piercing ammunition" provisions are both silly and bad precedent, as a practical matter their effect is small. The real risk is later laws requiring the use of trigger locks, or lawsuits that make not using them subject to significant risk of liability.

Posted on 2005-10-21 18:05:13.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6792

No trackbacks have been posted so far.

No comments have been posted so far.