| 词条 | Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act |
| 释义 |
| shorttitle = Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act | othershorttitles = Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 | longtitle = An Act to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. | colloquialacronym = PLCAA | nickname = Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 | enacted by = 109th | effective date = October 26, 2005 | public law url = https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-119/pdf/STATUTE-119-Pg2095.pdf | cite public law = 109-92 | cite statutes at large = {{usstat|119|2095}} | acts amended = | acts repealed = | title amended = {{unbulleted list|15 U.S.C.: Commerce and Trade|18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure}} | sections created = {{Usc-title-chap|15|105}} §§ 7901, 7902, 7903 | sections amended = {{Usc-title-chap|18|44}} §§ 921, 922, 924 | leghisturl = | introducedin = Senate | introducedbill = {{USBill|109|S.|397}} | introducedby = Larry Craig (R–ID) | introduceddate = February 16, 2005 | committees = | passedbody1 = Senate | passeddate1 = July 29, 2005 | passedvote1 = 65-31 {{US Senate Vote|109|1|219}} | passedbody2 = House | passedas2 = | passeddate2 = October 20, 2005 | passedvote2 = 283-144 {{US House Vote|2005|534}} | conferencedate = | passedbody3 = | passeddate3 = | passedvote3 = | agreedbody3 = | agreeddate3 = | agreedvote3 = | agreedbody4 = | agreeddate4 = | agreedvote4 = | passedbody4 = | passeddate4 = | passedvote4 = | signedpresident = George W. Bush | signeddate = October 26, 2005 | unsignedpresident = | unsigneddate = | vetoedpresident = | vetoeddate = | overriddenbody1 = | overriddendate1 = | overriddenvote1 = | overriddenbody2 = | overriddendate2 = | overriddenvote2 = | amendments = | SCOTUS cases = }} The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime. The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. BackgroundIn the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[1] In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers, saying: "You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens."[2] The city of Bridgeport, Connecticut, also sued several gun companies. Mayor Joseph Ganim said that the city's action aimed at "creating law with litigation.... That's the route that we're going because [the industry has] always very effectively, with big money, lobbied the legislature and kept laws from being passed."[3] In 2000, Smith & Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits.[4][5] The agreement required Smith & Wesson to sell guns only through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much wider potential impact than just Smith & Wesson.[6] HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door".[7]In January 2005, New York City passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures.[8] Legislative historyA similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.{{citation needed|date=October 2015}} The act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65–31.[9] On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 in favor and 144 opposed.[10] The final bill passed only after adding an amendment that mandated safety locks on handguns, and after preventing the renewal of the assault weapons ban from being added.{{citation needed|date=October 2015}} It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92.[11] Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as "... the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law".[12][13][14] LawsuitsSince the law's passage, there have been two cases taken to a jury trial for damages. In the first, a jury found in favor of a gun store in Alaska after a gun purchased by Jason Coday was used in a murder. The second resulted in a six million dollar verdict against Badger Guns after guns negligently sold there were used to shoot police officers.[15] In 2016, a Missouri gun store settled for $2.2 million, for selling a gun to a schizophrenic woman who later killed her father, after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the sale was "negligent entrustment" and therefore was not protected by the PLCAA.[16][17] The store had previously been warned by the woman's parents that she was mentally unstable, and asked that she not be sold a gun. In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer (Remington), the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[18] However, on March 14th, 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, allowing plaintiffs to continue their suit against Remington.[19] A lawsuit by victims of the Sutherland Springs shooting against the gun shop that sold the gun has been allowed to proceed.[20] Dismissed suitsIn 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Ileto v. Glock, ending a lawsuit against Glock by the family of victims in the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting.[21] The Brady Center and families of victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting sued Lucky Gunner, the online store where some of the ammunition was purchased. Federal judge Richard Paul Matsch dismissed the charges.[22][23] He ordered the plaintiffs to pay Lucky Gunner's legal fees under a separate Colorado law, HB 000-208.[24] Renewed interestAfter the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut, shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds.[1][25][26] 2016 electionDuring the 2016 United States presidential election, the act became a campaign issue, particularly within the Democratic Party primaries. Hillary Clinton stated that she would repeal the law if elected,[27] saying: "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."[28] 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.[28]Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."[29][30] He changed his position somewhat in January 2016, saying that he would favor a partial repeal of the law.[31]CriticismWhile gun violence continues as a major sociopolitical issue[32] in the United States, the firearms industry has negated civil action lawsuits from gun violence victims due to protection from liability that federal law grants the business. According to the Center for American Progress, the PLCAA prevents "victims of gun violence from pursuing well-established legal claims against irresponsible gun manufacturers and sellers—without presenting an alternative means for the victims to be compensated."[33] Exceptions within the law that allow lawsuits to go forward fall under "negligent entrustment" and "predicate exception" actions, which target negligent retailers or manufacturers who violated local statutes applicable to the sale of firearms, but these cases are difficult to prove and rarely clear the PLCAA threshold in court.[34][35] Experts argue that the PLCAA also hinders safety enhancement and self-regulation that can be achieved through civil liability claims against the industry. External links
See also
References1. ^1 Munoz, S. Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? Media Matters, December 19, 2012. 2. ^{{cite web|url=http://articles.philly.com/1998-11-13/news/25733300_1_gun-industry-gun-manufacturers-gun-shops|title=Chicago Sues Gun-makers And Retailers The Lawsuit Says Firearms Create A Deadly Public Nuisance. It Follows A Recent Filing By New Orleans.|publisher=philly-archives|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222075028/http://articles.philly.com/1998-11-13/news/25733300_1_gun-industry-gun-manufacturers-gun-shops|archivedate=2015-12-22|df=}} 3. ^Fred Musante, [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/31/nyregion/after-tobacco-handgun-lawsuits.html?pagewanted=all After Tobacco, Handgun Lawsuits], The New York Times (January 31, 1999). 4. ^{{cite web|url=http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html|title=Clinton Administration Reaches Historic Agreement with Smith & Wesson|publisher=nara.gov}} 5. ^{{cite web|url=http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/gunagree.html|title=HUD Archives: Agreement Between Smith && Wesson and the Departments of the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, Local Governments and States|publisher=Department of Housing and Urban Development}} 6. ^{{cite web|url=https://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/a-smith-wesson-faq/|title=A Smith & Wesson FAQ|publisher=Reason.com}} 7. ^{{cite book |author=Walter K. Olson |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c0rZNHtrZRYC&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law |publisher=Macmillan |year=2004 |isbn=9780312331191 |page=126}} 8. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/vote_records.php?s=3&id=138|title=Gotham Gazette|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222094336/http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/vote_records.php?s=3&id=138|archivedate=2015-12-22|df=}} 9. ^[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?&congress=109&session=1&vote=00219 "Roll Call Vote - 109th Congress, Vote 209"], U.S. Senate. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 10. ^"Final Vote Results for Roll Call 534", Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 11. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=73812 |title=George W. Bush: "Statement on House of Representatives Passage of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Legislation", October 20, 2005 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California - Santa Barbara}} 12. ^NRA. President Bush signs Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 13. ^http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-seek-repeal-protections-gun-manufacturers-420361 14. ^http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-gun/ 15. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/as-long-awaited-trial-opens-officers-attorney-faults-gun-store-sale-b99587735z1-330182131.html|title= As long-awaited trial opens, officers' attorney faults gun store sale|author=John Diedrich|work=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel}} 16. ^https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/lawsuit-against-missouri-gun-seller-plcaa/ 17. ^http://www.newsweek.com/missouri-gun-shop-agrees-pay-22-million-settle-wrongful-death-lawsuit-524167 18. ^{{cite news|url=http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-parents-lawsuit-dismissed-20161014-story.html|title=Sandy Hook Parents' Lawsuit Against Gun Maker Dismissed; Appeal Promised|last1=Altimari|first1=Dave|date=October 14, 2016|newspaper=Hartford Courant|access-date=October 14, 2016|last2=Kauffman|first2=Matthew}} 19. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/manufacturer-of-ar-15-can-be-sued-over-sandy-hook-massacre-court-rules-11552579520|title=Manufacturer of AR-15 Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Massacre, Court Rules|last=Gershman|first=Jacob|date=2019-03-14|work=Wall Street Journal|access-date=2019-03-22|last2=McWhirter|first2=Cameron|language=en-US|issn=0099-9660}} 20. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2019/01/31/texas-judge-will-decide-monday-sutherland-springs-families-lawsuit-academy-sports|title=Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunition|date=2019-01-31|website=Dallas News|language=en|access-date=2019-03-22}} 21. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100524/us-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-appe|title=NRA-ILA - U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in Ileto v. Glock |publisher=NRA-ILA}} 22. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/judge-orders-brady-center-to-pay-ammo-dealers-legal-fees-after-dismissing/|title=Judge orders Brady Center to pay ammo dealer's legal fees after dismissing lawsuit|author=Stephen Gutowski|publisher=Fox News}} 23. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/29/brady-center-ordered-pay-ammo-dealers-legal-fees-a/|title=Brady Center ordered to pay ammo dealer's legal fees after failed lawsuit |work=The Washingtion Times}} 24. ^{{cite news |title=We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer |author=Lonnie and Sandy Phillips|date=September 25, 2015 |publisher=Huffpost |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html}} 25. ^Bissell, H.J. Rolling Back Legal Immunity for the Gun Industry. Daily Kos, Jan 14, 2013. 26. ^{{cite news |first1=Matt |last1=Miller |date=June 15, 2015 |title=Jury says Rayco Sales wasn't liable for Simone Kim's murder |url=http://www.ktoo.org/2015/06/15/jury-says-rayco-sales-wasnt-liable-simone-kims-murder/ |publisher=KTOO}} 27. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-unveil-plan-major-new-gun-restrictions-n438361|title=Hillary Clinton Unveils Plan for Major New Gun Restrictions|author=Alba, Monica|publisher=NBC News|date=October 4, 2015|access-date=March 10, 2016}} 28. ^1 Carroll, Lauren (October 16, 2015). "Clinton: Gun industry Is 'Wholly Protected' from All Lawsuits", PolitiFact. Retrieved March 10, 2016. 29. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/bernie_sanders_on_guns_at_the_debate.html|title=Bernie Sanders' Defense of His Pro-Gun, Pro-NRA Votes Was Absolutely Terrible|publisher=Slate |author=Stern, Mark Joseph|date=October 13, 2015|access-date=March 10, 2016}} 30. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/protection-lawful-commerce-arms-act-controversial-gun-law-bernie-sanders-voted-has-2141492|title=Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act: The Controversial Gun Law Bernie Sanders Voted For Has Kept Families From Winning Lawsuits|author=Lidgett, Adam|date=October 14, 2015|work=International Business Times|access-date=March 10, 2016}} 31. ^Zorn, Eric (January 20, 2016). "Bernie Sanders Misfires on Gun Law Repeal", Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 10, 2016. 32. ^{{cite web|url=https://news.yale.edu/2017/01/04/yale-study-finds-gun-violence-contagious-social-epidemic|title= Yale study finds that gun violence is a 'contagious' social epidemic|date=January 4, 2017|publisher=Yale University|access-date=April 30, 2018}} 33. ^{{cite web|url=https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/14133650/PLCAA.pdf|title=Immunizing the Gun Industry. The Harmful Effect of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act|date=January 15, 2016|publisher=Center for American Progress|access-date=November 17, 2016}} 34. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/lawsuit-against-missouri-gun-seller-plcaa/|title= Lawsuits Against Gun Sellers Almost Never Make it to Trial. This One Will |author=Mascia, Jennifer|date=April 7, 2016|publisher=The Trace|access-date=November 17, 2016}} 35. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42871.pdf|title=The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: An Overview of Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers|author=Chu, Vivian S.|date=December 20, 2012|publisher=Federation of American Scientists|access-date=November 17, 2016}} 4 : 2005 in American law|109th United States Congress|Gun politics in the United States|United States federal firearms legislation |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。