The House’s vote yesterday to approve the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a victory for proponents of sensible crime policy. The bill, which the president is expected to sign, bars civil actions against gun manufacturers and sellers who obey the laws governing their trade. The gun-control lobby was apoplectic, and with good reason. The measure cuts off their last avenue for imposing gun control and threatens to refocus attention on the awkward question of whether gun control actually works.

The latter point is a particular problem, because there is no evidence that any type of gun control reduces crime, as one economist, John Lott, author of “The Bias Against Guns,” told us the other day. Some studies even suggest that gun control is counterproductive, although this proposition is currently the subject of vigorous debate among academics. A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, Kelly Hobbs, told us that in some states introducing right-to-carry laws that increase the number of legal guns on the streets has led to a reduction in violent crimes, but it is extremely difficult to separate out the effects of many factors that influence crime rates.

Congress has flirted with gun control periodically since the Depression. But crime rates haven’t consistently tracked with gun control. For example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 barred felons from purchasing firearms, instituted new age restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of children, and required dealers to be licensed, among many other provisions. And violent crime rates shot up in the years after its passage, including an increase of 17.7% in New York state between 1969 and 1970.

Crime in New York only started to drop dramatically in the early 1990s, a trend that accelerated after Mayor Giuliani stepped up policing in the city. The start of this crime reduction predated enactment of the Brady Law in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994. And nationally, the impact of those laws is an open question. The 1994 federal ban expired last year, and even then violent crime decreased by 5.4% in cities with populations larger than 1 million.

The persuasive power of these facts helps explain why Congress and many legislatures across the country have been reluctant to pass additional gun control in recent years and have allowed old laws, such as the assault-weapons ban, to expire. So the anti-gun crowd has taken the fight to court, suing an industry whose only crime is engaging in legal commerce. Since 1998, such suits have been filed by 25 state and local governments, including both the city and state of New York (the state case had been dismissed, but the city case was still pending). None of these plaintiffs succeeded before yesterday’s action in the House, but supporters of gun rights were prudent to worry given that not even basic property rights are safe anymore after last year’s Supreme Court session.

It is no accident that legislators across the country have been reaching the reasoned conclusion that gun control is, at best, frivolous public policy. We’ve had long experience with it now and there’s no sign that it works. We’re glad to see that Congress has finally forced the courts to abide by that judgment by passing the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. And if the liberal press starts caterwauling about a shield law for the gun makers, bear in mind that the press is up on Capitol Hill right now, asking for a shield law of its own – under the same Bill of Rights that covers the gun makers.