1、1 The words “or is currently pending”are not in S. 659.2 We say “would not preclude” rather than “would allow” because it is state law that allows tortsuits. H.R. 1036 and S. 659 would preclude such suits, except in the instances when it would notpreclude them.Congressional Research Service The Libr
2、ary of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS21486Updated March 1, 2004Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,H.R. 1036, S. 659, S. 1805, and S. 1806, 108thCongress: Legal AnalysisHenry CohenLegislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryThe Protection of Lawful
3、 Commerce in Arms Act, H.R. 1036, 108th Congress, aspassed by the House on April 9, 2003, would prohibit lawsuits, except in specifiedcircumstances, against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a tradeassociation, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a fir
4、earm orammunition. A similar bill, S. 659, has been introduced in the Senate, and, exceptwhere indicated in a footnote, every statement in this report about H.R. 1036 alsoapplies to S. 659. Subsequently, S. 659 was reintroduced in identical form as S. 1806,and in amended form as S. 1805, and, on Nov
升级VIP 