The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was created to protect the firearm industry from ruinous lawsuits meant not to recoup actual damages caused by companies’ misdeeds, but to punish them for selling guns to the public. The acts of third parties, most of whom never bought a gun lawfully in their life, were laid at the feet of the industry, and Congress responded to put an end to this.
The lawsuits weren’t anything but lawfare. They were an attempt to destroy the industry through legal expenses, making it too risky to do business with the general public. If there are no guns to buy, you don’t need laws about who can buy what.
The PLCAA was passed to stop that, and it’s mostly worked.
Recently, though, some anti-gunners think they have a workaround, and they’re trying to exploit it. This is where Sen. John Cornyn, who has been on every gun rights advocate’s crap list since the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made it through the Senate, introduced a bill that he and the NSSF say is intended to curb that.
Called the SHOT Act—Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act—it takes steps to protect the industry.
Not everyone is on board, though. The Firearms Policy Coalition has a problem with it.
Firearms Policy Coalition strongly supports legislation to meaningfully strengthen the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Congress should act decisively to protect the People’s rights and the entire Second Amendment ecosystem against abusive litigation designed to impose gun control through financial destruction and lawfare.
But Senator John Cornyn’s deeply flawed SHOT Act does not get that job done.
FPC understands that industry special interests are pressing Congress to enact the SHOT Act in its current form by whatever means and through whatever legislative vehicle they can. Senate offices should not mistake industry lobbying for adequate protection of the right to keep and bear arms. A bill is not a victory merely because its sponsors and supporters call it “pro-Second Amendment.”
For months, FPC has engaged with congressional offices, stakeholders, and leading legal experts—including our Supreme Court counsel—to develop strong and effective PLCAA reforms. While there was meaningful engagement in the process, key stakeholders ultimately refused to support stronger language, leaving a deeply flawed bill that fails to provide the protections the Second Amendment community actually needs.
Congress should not squander this opportunity on a weak half-measure that protects selected interests, leaves critical parts of the Second Amendment ecosystem exposed, and allows politicians to pretend the problem has been solved.
The FPC says it has a proposed amendment that will do just what they’re claiming the SHOT Act doesn’t do, but there’s a problem here. No one outside of the FPC offices seems to have a clue what its issue with the SHOT Act actually is and what FPC wants to see instead. t
Plus, I find it curious that they’re upset about the “industry lobbying” here. After all, the PLCAA is a law that protects the firearm industry. It ultimately protects the right to keep and bear arms, but it does so by protecting the industry that creates the firearms we buy so we can keep and bear them. To focus on the industry kind of makes sense, and their lobbying to protect themselves is pretty central to the whole thing, at least as I see it.
Now, I do have an issue of my own with the SHOT Act. I want to see something that puts some teeth into the PLCAA so that anyone who tries a frivolous suit doesn’t just lose the money they had to pay to their attorneys, but something else. It needs to hurt to lose one of these cases so that only those who have firm grounds will try it.
Plus, in fairness, I don’t trust that Cornyn didn’t sneak in some language we’re all missing that will screw everyone over, but that’s just my paranoia talking. That doesn’t mean the paranoia isn’t right, mind you, because paranoia doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you, but still…
I’m more than willing to listen to FPC’s concerns, because the FPC is an organization I really like. If they say there’s an issue, I’m willing to listen to see for myself what the issue is. However, as someone said on X, people can’t call their congresspeople up and make demands without knowing what they’re talking about first.
That’s fair enough.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see the issue just yet, and I haven’t found anyone outside of the anti-gun side who has articulated one other than what I said above.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Editor’s Note: Second Amendment advocates across the country are doing everything they can to protect our right to keep and bear arms and our and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their legislative and legal successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
