Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Let's use an example that's not going to happen, but might get the point across.
If I gave you a loaded gun and told you not to use it to shoot anyone and you did, I would get in trouble for having given you a loaded gun.
if we left the links here knowing that they linked to a copyright violation or something else illegal, we'd be doing the same sort of thing as handing someone a loaded gun.
|
I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act means that you will not be held liable for what someone else does with the gun that you gave them.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283-144. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President Bush and became Public Law 108-73.
The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after being combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The final bill passed only after an amendment was added which mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal was prevented from being added onto the bill.
Using your logic I would be held liable if I lent someone my car and then that person ran someone over.