Kentucky House Passes Bill Shielding Gun Industry from Frivilous Lawsuits

While the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was supposed to put an end to the series of lawsuits pushed by anti-gun activists, and did for a time, the anti-gun groups were never going to just accept defeat on that. They waited to try to find a new strategy.

Thanks to their lawmaker allies in some states, they’ve created one, which they’re trying to have a field day with. They want to bankrupt the firearm industry. They’ll settle for throttling the sale of guns to private individuals if that’s all they can get, but it’s not what they want.

A number of pro-gun states, though, are taking the opposite position. They’re creating laws meant to shield these companies from lawsuits.

Kentucky is now one step closer to joining those ranks.

A bill that would prevent firearms manufacturers and sellers from facing certain lawsuits advanced off the Kentucky House floor on Tuesday.

Rep. T.J. Roberts, R-Burlington, said House Bill 78 codifies federal standards outlined in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.

Roberts said HB 78 is the opportunity to protect the Second Amendment just as House Bill 222 in 2022 was an opportunity for the House to protect the First Amendment.

…

“Whenever it comes to someone who followed the law and sold a firearm and it is later used in a crime, the criminal is the person who should be held accountable,” he said. “… We have to ensure that our constitutional rights are protected from extra-legal efforts to suppress these basic rights.”

Rep. Erika Hancock, D-Frankfort, spoke against the legislation. She argued that Congress recognizes through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act “that the courts should still be able to examine cases where there are allegations that a company violated laws governing the sale and marketing firearms.”

Hancock might have a point if these companies were, in fact, actually breaking some law. The problem is that they’re not. There’s absolutely no evidence that these manufacturers are doing anything illegal. They’re following every applicable law, particularly regarding the sale of firearms. Marketing laws deal with making claims that don’t pan out, which isn’t what these companies are doing.

What she actually means is that while PLCAA has some provisions for companies being held accountable for actual wrongdoing, she wants these new attacks to keep going because even if they lose, they still hurt the entire industry and allow an attack on the Second Amendment without worrying about pro-gun lobbying efforts.

Should these companies need shields like this? No, they shouldn’t. Other industries don’t need them, for the most part, and anti-gunners aren’t necessarily wrong when they point out that the firearms industry has protections others don’t.

But the key word up there is “need.” They need these because no one is suing Honda because of street racers killing someone, or suing Toyota for drunk drivers, even if they’re marketing some of these cars as being able to go from 0-60 in half a second. Everyone knows it’s the tool behind the wheel that’s the problem.

Switch it to guns, though, and now they want to sue Glock because of what some gang-banger did with a stolen gun. It’s ridiculous.

Kentucky passing this bill will make it more attractive to firearm companies that don’t want to live where they’ll be sued into oblivion. Unfortunately, this is just one step.

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 get 60% off your VIP membership.