A Stitch in Haste

There was quite a lot of blogging, including by me, about the proposed federal ban on lawsuits against the gun industry for damages caused by criminals who use guns.

My position was fairly straightforward: there is no "right to file a frivolous lawsuit" and "states' powers" do not include the power to permit frivolous lawsuits. I therefore supported the law, despite any supposed "affronts" to federalism.

Meanwhile, the exact same thing has happened in the just-signed transportation bill:

General Motors Corp. and its General Motors Acceptance Corp. unit on Wednesday said they will resume vehicle leasing in New York, after a more than two-year absence, following a change in law that will reduce their liability for auto accidents. Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler parent DaimlerChrysler AG were expected to follow suit.

GM made its announcement in connection with the expected signing by President Bush of a highway bill that would reduce vehicle lessors' potential liabilities.

The automakers had stopped leasing in New York because of their exposure under the state's "vicarious liability" law. Such laws can leave owners of leased vehicles responsible for injuries and property damage caused by drivers.

This is exactly the same, no difference whatsoever, as the federal ban on gun industry liability: the affected states blew it, just plain blew it, on car-lessor liability (i.e., there shouldn't be any) and failed to protect the right of the industry not to be sued frivolously. So Congress stepped in and did it for them.

Meanwhile, I have not seen a single blogpost, not one, decrying this provision of the transportation bill as an "encroachment on federalism."

Go figure.

I guess it's just a rule of blogging: start talking about guns, and common sense goes right out the window (see also this post chain).

POST SCRIPT: Let the record reflect that I just mocked this same federal transportation bill on other grounds.