Gun legislation
Reasonable people do not believe that Ford or General Motors should be sued when a drunken driver speeds into and kills a pedestrian. They understand that the manufacturer should not be faulted merely because its product is used improperly and illegally. It is obviously the driver who needs to be punished.
Similarly, the predations of arsonists do not prompt litigation against matchbook makers any more than the maker of Swiss Army knives is responsible for stabbings or the makers of Louisville Sluggers are to blame when their product is used in a beating.
Yet a minority of people and politicians believe that the manufacturer should pay when a gun is used improperly or illegally. One state and 33 municipalities have so far taken this view, and have sued gun makers for providing the product used in criminal shootings. None has yet won a case, but gun makers are clamoring for
protection from such suits, and they should get it.
A Senate bill likely to be voted on today would shield gun makers and dealers from lawsuits so long as they neither sell faulty weapons nor break any laws. This legislation is worthy of wholehearted support, and indeed seems likely to pass. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the main sponsor there are 55 in total believes he has sufficient votes to overcome all obstacles, and President Bush is keen to sign it.
This is as it should be. A bipartisan majority of legislators understands that the same principle should apply to guns as applies to autos, matchbooks, penknives and baseball bats. Each is a legal tool designed to perform legal functions.
The main legal functions of a gun in private ownership are to use for sport and to shoot and perhaps kill people in self-defense. For a substantial minority, the fact that firearms are designed to kill obscures the principle that manufacturers should receive the same protections as the makers of any other legal product.
The Senate legislation is likely to come with two amendments. One would extend the ban on assault weapons for another 10 years, and the other would force unlicensed gun dealers to carry out instant background checks on purchasers at gun shows.
These measures are supported by some senators who do not want manufacturers to get legal immunity. And many supporters of immunity oppose the two amendments. But neither amendment should be allowed to kill the main bill. It deserves to become law because it re-establishes an important principle that in recent years has been trammeled and eroded by short-cut expediency.
