As I already pointed out, 33 states already had a similar law on the books at the time this law was passed. Take a look at this article:
The authors of the article are both fellows at the Cato Institute (which strongly supports gun rights) and they pointed out the flaws with this bill:
"It’s easy to understand the concerns that spurred these bills. Federal tort reform supporter Rep. Chris John (D-La.) is correct when he calls the gun lawsuits "frivolous" and warns that they "jeopardize a legitimate, legal business that is worth billions of dollars to our national economy." But not every national problem is a federal problem. As with PSN, gun rights advocates who back federal tort reform have forgotten the Tenth Amendment’s admonition that powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution remain with the states or the people. The power to control frivolous lawsuits belongs to the states."
Where in the Constitution could the federal government find authority to ban state and local lawsuits against the gun industry? According to the tort reform bills pending in both the House and Senate, the answer is the all-purpose Commerce Clause. As the bills’ supporters view it, the lawsuits interfere with interstate commerce, and therefore, Congress has the authority to strike them down.
But the Commerce Clause, properly interpreted, does not give Congress blanket authority to regulate any activity that might affect commerce. Rather, the purpose of the Commerce Clause is functional: to secure the free flow of commerce among the states. That means Congress may act only when actual or imminent state regulations impede free trade among the states, or when it’s clear that uniform national regulations are essential toward that purpose. Even then, Congress’s power ought properly extend no further than to regulate: (1) channels and vehicles of interstate commerce, such as waterways, airways, and railroads; (2) discrimination by a state against out-of-state interests like restrictions on imported goods; and (3) attempts by a state to exercise sovereignty beyond the state’s borders, for example, state rules governing national stock exchanges, telecommunications, banking, and broadcast or Internet advertising. Under no credible theory of the commerce power can Congress use that power to regulate noncommercial activities like lawsuits that are designed to prevent and redress injuries, not to regulate interstate trade.
Yes, lawsuits against gun companies affect commerce. But so does just about any state regulation or any court decision. The Commerce Clause could not prevent California, for example, from requiring catalytic converters on cars sold in the state. The Commerce Clause does not permit the federal government to override state minimum wage laws, or state safety regulations on power plants, or the regulation of firearms. Yet all of those state rules affect interstate commerce.
As for your question about venue shopping:
"Companies have a remedy when state courts permit phony lawsuits. They can withdraw from doing business in a state that has an oppressive tort regime. And that remedy honors the federalist idea that the states serve as fifty experimental laboratories. For example, physicians and insurance companies are leaving Mississippi because outrageous damage awards have priced malpractice insurance at prohibitive levels. Ultimately, the voters in oppressive states will have to choose between access to products and extortionate tort law. As more businesses leave, the choice will become obvious. Yes, there’s an effect on commerce when out-of-state companies leave. But the effect is not related to the interstate aspect of commerce. There’s a similar effect when in-state companies shut down. In Mississippi, in-state and out-of-state insurance companies—or gun companies, for that matter—are all exposed to the same tort regime. That’s why the Commerce Clause should not apply."
Lastly, this paragraph from the article caught my attention: "Those gun rights supporters who would have it otherwise are asking for trouble. Ronald Reagan once noted that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. A similar dynamic exists with constitutional interpretation: a Commerce Clause broad enough to solve every national problem is too broad not to be abused. When Congress’s authority to regulate commerce is misused to impose federal rules that restrict state gun lawsuits, we should not be surprised that it will also be misused to impose federal rules that restrict gun possession and ownership."
Remember the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban? Perversions of the Commerce Clause, just as this bill is. If you support bills like this and think that they are constitutional then you must also think that ObamaCare is constitutional (it is not). You can oppose it because it is horrible legislation that will increase the cost of health care, but not on constitutional grounds. P.S. -- I am almost entirely certain that were the federal gun manufacturer immunity law ever to make it before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas would agree with me. Justice Rehnquist would have as well. You'd have the liberals on your side, however. They would gladly uphold the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as constitutional.
Not correct. See http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_04_17-2005_04_23.shtml#1114111634
And this law imposes liability for manufacturing and distributing semiautomatic weapons even if the manufacturers and dealers are distributing the guns far outside D.C., in a jurisdiction where the guns are perfectly legal -- and semiautomatic guns are legal nearly everywhere in the U.S.