Protecting gun makers from lawsuits: although the new legislation signed by President Bush to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits was well-intended, it was poorly implemented.(SECOND AMENDMENT)

Last month, President Bush signed into law legislation that protects gun manufacturers from frivolous product liability lawsuits, usually filed by victims of crime or by their families.

The law is designed to circumvent suits that are filed against the gun companies because of how the product is used or misused--not those filed against faulty products. The targeted suits are those that are intended to put gun makers out of business. Successful product liability suits could put gun makers out of business by draining their financial resources through constantly defending themselves in court.

Until the present time, the suits have largely not had the desired effect, and the costs of these suits have been getting passed on to law-abiding citizens who purchase guns. According to the May 2005 issue of American Hunter magazine, the suits have already "cost consumers well over $200 million." The suits could also cause the closure of gun makers by forcing them to meet unrealistic design criteria--such as "smart chips" that allow only one specific person to fire a particular gun. The anti-gun crowd is able to afford these attacks on legal businesses because they are being backed by anti-gun billionaire George Soros and other anti-gun zealots.

The anti-gun crowd has been using frivolous suits to try to end legal gun ownership because they have failed to end gun ownership through legislative means.

So this legislation is a great victory, right? Well, not exactly.

The legislation is based on a correct premise: product liability suits that are filed against companies that produce properly functioning products should be dismissed before the companies incur significant costs. And it is proper that the people who misuse guns should be held responsible for injuries committed with firearms, not the makers of the guns. If the anti-gun crowd's litigation standard of liability were applied to makers of other products, they could be sued indiscriminately and put out of business. Rope makers could be sued because their ropes were used in kidnappings or strangling cases; car manufacturers could be held liable for hit and run accidents; and hockey puck makers could be held liable for broken teeth and concussions.

The law's premise is good. It's the law's implementation that is bad.