Eugene Volokh eviscerates a Slate smear of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act:

The gun industry has been exposed to novel theories of legal liability, which don’t apply to other industries: If I’m hit by a 20-year-old driver who was drunk on Coors and driving a Ford Mustang, I wouldn’t be able to hold the alcohol manufacturer or car manufacturer liable — even if the manufacturer sold the Coors to a liquor store in a college town (so that the manufacturer must surely have known that some fraction of its products would end up in the hands of the underaged), even if the manufacturer knew that the liquor store had been suspected in past unlawful sales (but still was allowed by the state to sell beer), and even if I can persuade the jury that car manufacturers shouldn’t be able to sell really fast and powerful cars, especially to 20-year-olds, who are notoriously prone to speeding. Yet many of the gun manufacturer lawsuits were very similar to these lawsuits, and Congress was right to preempt them.

Read the whole thing.

One can expect the first constitutional challenge to the law on November 21, when Judge Weinstein will hear a motion to dismiss New York City’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers. (Tom Perrotta, “Judge Stays New York City’s Suit Against Gun Industry”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 9). We discussed the case Apr. 13, 2004.

Filed under: guns