Immunity from Lawsuits for Gun Makers? - Right or wrong?

On Tuesday, March 2, a Senate bill which would have effectively granted immunity to firearms manufacturers from lawsuits stemming from crimes in which legally sold guns are used, was effectively killed for this session of Congress. A so-called "gun maker immunity" bill had passed in the House of Representatives last year, and the two bodies would have collaborated on the final version, had it passed in the Senate. Senate Democrats, with help from a small number of Republicans, were able to pass and attach two amendments to the proposed bill which made it unacceptable to its original backers – a new provision to require background checks for gun purchases made at gun shows, and the extension of an expiring law banning the importation and sale of a number of firearms classed as assault weapons. According to reports, the National Rifle Association asked senators to vote against the bill rather than send it forward with the amendments.

In last year’s House session, Republican leaders refused to allow a vote on extending the assault weapons ban, which is set to expire this September. Senate Democrats hoped to use the Senate vote to get a new hearing in the house for the same amendments. However, a White House spokesman indicated that the amendments would kill the current effort to pass the originally proposed bill this year.

Proponents of the original bill say their objective is to stop lawsuits aimed at putting gun makers out of business in the name of gun control by bankrupting them through legal expenses. Even Senate Minority Leader (Democrat) Tom Daschle had agreed to support the bill when proponents agreed that gun makers and distributors would not be immune to such suits if they involved defective products or illegal sales. While careful not to use the term “gun control measure,” opponents characterized the bill as a giveaway to the gun industry, and protection of a special interest group.