Talk:Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

message: I deleted "showing that many Democrats were able to abandon (at least temporarily) their party's traditional support of anti-gun legislation in favor of this bill" because that interpretation is subjective and open to debate.  We should leave it to the reader to determine what bipartisan support for the law means.
--151.203.24.205 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation of importance

message: Here are some sources I plan on using to expand this article (some are not RS, they are just used as reminders or because they contain tidbits I want to try and source) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the NRA a reliable source or best available source for gun control articles? How about Mother Jones? The Brady Campaign? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: After years of mixed success in their efforts enact gun control via legislation, gun control advocates attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into implementing measures to avoid lawsuits that could put them out of business.Munoz, S. Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? Media Matters, December 19, 2012.
That ain't what the source says. C'mon guys, at least try to be neutral. Felsic2 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the offender: . Really, really bad editing. Felsic2 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This was 6 months ago, so things are a bit hazy, but based on some quick searching, it appears I was inspired in  that wording largely from  . In retrospect, I agree the wording was too slanted. I note that in my edit summary for that opening sentence, I specifically said it could probably use some NPOV help. In the 6 months since, it has gotten WP:SILENCE. I have no objection to improving the wording now. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, If you look at the overall set of edits I made at the time its clear that those admittedly less than optimal edits are the exception rather than the rule https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act&type=revision&diff=686175050&oldid=685725897 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a deceptive and knowingly POV edit and now you're saying that since no one caught it was OK, per WP:SILENCE. You took an NRA-ILA opinion and made it look like it was a statement by a liberal news analysis source. Since this was done just a day or two after your topic ban was lifted, "less than optimal" editing is less than acceptable. Felsic2 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a behavior complaint, bring it after you are autoconfirmed. But keep such things out of article talk, please. Not that it matters here, but Gaijin42 is an editor in good standing with a good reputation with most other editors, as far as I can tell (and certainly with me). Accusations such as these, outside the normal venues for such, are particularly unacceptable in such cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

text: This was a complaint about an edit. This page is the right place to talk about edits to the article. The problem has now been fixed, no thanks to any of you. Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gimme a break 

message: There is a line in this section that reads "Shortly after Clinton made this claim, fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability." Not only is that not precisely what Politifact says, but here is an Atlantic article taking the opposing position:
The Bush-era legislation immunizes gun manufacturers and gun dealers from civil liability for crimes committed with their weapons. It gives the gun industry a powerful legal defense that most other industries do not enjoy, and it creates disincentives about gun safety at the point of sale. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/
The use of Clinton's specific phrasing seems to be there just to setup the politifact counter. And the counter isn't even that strong:
The act "is not the first federal law to grant a particular industry immunity from tort liability," said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, who edited a book on gun industry litigation.
Possibly the most analogous rule -- in that it protects a specific group of potential defendants from a specific liability theory -- is one that offers some immunity to online service providers, said John Goldberg, a law professor at Harvard University and an expert in tort law, in an email to PolitiFact. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks victims of online defamation from suing service providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like YouTube) for failing to monitor or remove defamatory posts uploaded by customers.
In a prior interview with NPR, Goldberg called the gun industry law particularly "aggressive" in terms of the liability protections granted. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/16/hillary-clinton/clinton-gun-industry-wholly-protected-all-lawsuits/ --75.118.96.54 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewed interest 

message: This section is sourced exclusively from political advocacy and propaganda sources. Unless this section is balanced out with equally biased counterpoints, this section should probably be deleted, since the section is decidedly political and not encyclopedic in nature. 4serendipity (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section embarrassingly biased 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222075028/http://articles.philly.com/1998-11-13/news/25733300_1_gun-industry-gun-manufacturers-gun-shops to http://articles.philly.com/1998-11-13/news/25733300_1_gun-industry-gun-manufacturers-gun-shops
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222094336/http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/vote_records.php?s=3&id=138 to http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/vote_records.php?s=3&id=138
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was perplexed by the earlier edits (of 2022-03-02 11:51:31 UTC and 2022-03-02 11:56:01 UTC) that moved language describing general product liability to a section describing criminal liability. This is a strange change to make, especially unsourced! A good discussion on the details is offered by Cornell's Legal Information Institute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability
In a nutshell, product liability does not cover criminal misuse -- axe manufacturers are not taken to court over axe murders, there is no cause of action against Zippo when there is an arson, &c -- but rather negligent or harmful actions undertaken by the manufacturer. It is definitely not true that there is a difference relative to "other kinds of consumer products for which manufacturers and dealers are held responsible." because no such accountability exists, in general. The laws of liability and the details of the PLCAA are more complex than that and resist such a summary. solidsnack (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other manufacturers and dealers liable for criminal misuse? Which ones?