Posted by Melani Filosa.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, a regulatory committee created by the Consumer Product Safety Act enacted in 1972, regulates all consumer products in order to protect the buyer. They promote safety by issuing recalls, developing standards, and requiring warning labels. Because this committee regulates consumer products, they first needed to define exactly what fell under the tile of a “consumer product.” The definition can be found in Section 3 of the CPSA (Consumer Product Safety Act) linked here https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/105435/cpsa.pdf. The act creates exact parameters of what the CPSC can regulate, which excludes all firearms and ammunition. The exact language of the Act reads “The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall make no ruling or order that restricts the manufacture or sale of firearms, fire-arms ammunition, or components of firearms ammunition, including black powder or gunpowder for firearms Section 3(e) of P.L. 94-284 [S. 644]; May 11, 1976,” generating the obvious question: should firearms be included in the definition of “consumer product,” or would that type of regulation be unconstitutional. Because the debate over gun use has been in the spotlight, it is important to know the argument for more regulation and that against it. This post will aim to inform only, in the hopes of creating knowledgeable voters on either side of the issue.
The Trace, an online news media source whose mission is to “close that deficit through daily reporting, investigations,” wrote an article titled “Cars, Toys, and Aspirin have to Meet Mandatory Safety Standards. Guns Don’t. Here’s Why,” written by Olivia Li. The argument in favor of expanding the definition often relies on the popular gun/car analogy, used by individuals and President Obama alike. Here is essentially how that analogy goes: automobiles have regulations, such as seatbelt use and airbag regulations, in order to protect both drivers and pedestrians, and we have also created regulatory agencies to oversee that automobiles are built to meet these standards. At the same time, there are no regulations or oversight in the creation of guns, which are arguably used in households and therefore a consumer product, just like a car. Li writes:
No federal agency oversees how firearms are designed or built. While the federal government can mandate recalls of unsafe toys, polluting cars, or even discolored medications, it’s unable to recall defective firearms. There is also no system in place to track accidental deaths caused by malfunctioning weapons. Rather, the firearms industry self-polices its products, establishing its own design standards and initiating its own voluntary recalls.
This quote captures the essence of the argument in favor of expanding the definition. If every other product used by a consumer, which is pretty much everything, can be regulated, why should guns be any different. It is important to note, however, that there are safety standards imposed by SAMMI, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, yet these standards are voluntary. Those who wish to expand the definition believe these regulations should not be voluntary and gun safety should not “fall on the shoulders of the gun owner,” but instead by mandated by the federal government and regulated by in agencies.
Again, the question asked by those in favor of expanding the definition is why are guns different than other products, which leads to the argument against the change to the definition. The two major arguments from this side are 1) there are regulations, and the gun manufacturer can only be held responsible to a point, and of course 2) the Second Amendment. The first defense, argued by NPR on their “Break it Down” page, where they breakdown what candidates and politicians say and fact check their statements. The article entitled “FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers ‘Totally Free of Liability For Their Behavior’?” points out that, in fact, gun companies are liable for their products in certain instances and are responsible for meeting standards and regulations. This leads to the arguments against expansion of the definition. They essentially argue that with more regulations, gun manufacturers will unfairly be held responsible for misuse of guns, turning the gun/automobile analogy on its head saying car manufacturers are not held responsible for drunk drivers. This argument relies on the gun doing what it is intended to do. As Kortzleben states “If you aim and fire a gun at an attacker, it’s doing what it was intended to do.” Finally, the Second Amendment argument states that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for the same regulation of guns, and that any changes to include guns as a consumer product would be unconstitutional, which again can be found in the CPSA itself.
As one can easily see, after reading the arguments on either side of the discussion, the authority and legality to include guns and firearms under the definition of consumer product is unclear. Both arguments root themselves in the American legal system. For this reason, it is imperative to understand the discussion and confront the proposed problems in either argument, creating an informed constituency who cares about their rights and the issues. The argument over gun control is not going anywhere, and therefore it becomes each of our duty to know the debate.
Melani is an English major with a minor in legal studies at the Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.
Works Cited:
https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/105435/cpsa.pdf
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/gun-safety-standards/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior