One of the great frustrations of the Gun Control Industry is its general inability to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That’s the law that protects gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits when firearms they legally build and sell are used in the commission of a crime.
The PLCAA keeps gun makers and sellers in business. Without it, the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex, using its own attorneys and those in the tort business, would sue them into bankruptcy while people like the President and like-minded politicians cheer them on.
Because of the PLCAA’s robustness, enemies of the right to keep and bear arms seeking to wage lawfare against gun makers have been forced to take other tacks in their efforts to get at them, using other legal angles of attack. One of the most prominent ploys is “public nuisance” laws that claim the criminal misuse of gun makers’ products presents a hazard to society…one that firearms manufacturers are somehow liable for.
Two of the most recent states to enact such laws are Grampy Joe’s home state of Delaware and the state that takes unending pride in its never-ending push to further limit Second Amendment rights, New Jersey. Yesterday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation sued both states, challenging their public nuisance laws as transparent violations of the PLCAA.
Here’s the NSSF’s press release announcing the suits . . .
NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed suits against the attorneys general of Delaware and New Jersey, challenging recently-enacted “public nuisance” laws in both states that are “specifically designed to evade the judgment of Congress – and the Constitution.”
Both Delaware and New Jersey enacted public nuisance laws allowing the state and private parties to sue firearm manufacturers for the harm caused by the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms. In 2005, Congress barred these sorts of baseless lawsuits when it passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Delaware and New Jersey’s laws are preempted by the PLCAA under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Public nuisance lawsuits brought by municipalities against members of the firearm industry arose in the late 1990s and early 2000s to “regulate through litigation.” None of those dozens of lawsuits, including those by Wilmington, Del., and Newark, Camden County and the City of Camden, N.J., were successful. These municipal lawsuits intended to bankrupt the industry members or, through the massive cost of litigation, force them to accept settlement agreements that contained gun control provisions rejected by Congress and not supported by the American public. Delaware and New Jersey’s new laws are a blatant and unconstitutional attempt to return to an era of “regulation through litigation.”
“These laws enacted by the Delaware and New Jersey flout the will of Congress and undermine the U.S. Constitution,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “These state laws are at odds with bedrock principles of American law, which does not hold manufacturers and sellers legally responsible for the actions of criminals and remote third parties over whom the manufacturer and seller have no control when they misuse lawfully sold products.”
Delaware and New Jersey’s laws also violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause. These laws would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold in other states that later find their way into Delaware or New Jersey through the independent actions of remote third parties and criminals.
These laws are in violation of the PLCAA, the bipartisan law Congress intended to stop these frivolous claims. Its constitutionality has been upheld by every appellate court in the nation to consider the issue.
The PLCAA simply codified black letter law. The PLCAA keeps activist lawyers from placing the blame on members of the firearm industry for the criminal misuse of legal firearms lawfully manufactured and sold. No other industry in America had been targeted by such baseless, politically motivated lawsuits.
NSSF is also filing motions for preliminary injunction to stop the states from enforcing these laws.
sounds like it’s the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex that’s the public nuisance.
Triple damages
RE: “The PLCAA keeps gun makers and sellers in business. Without it, the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex, using its own attorneys and those in the tort business, would sue them into bankruptcy while people like the President and like-minded politicians cheer them on.”
Exactly like nazis who cheered on brown shirts to terrorize unarmed Jews and democRats across the America who cheered on the kkk to terrorize unarmed Blacks. Gun Control just didn’t drop out of democRat behinds yesterday it dropped out if their behinds long ago…Gun Control? It’s a democRat Party family tradition.
For those new to this forum/venue/website, “Bruen” didn’t really settle much, but it did spawn innumerable tactics to either get around the SC decision, or bog gun owners/sellers/distributors in expensive legal actions (where in wins for gun owners are endlessly appealed, and courts play games with those appeals).
The purpose of the attempts to evade “Bruen” is to delay “Bruen” until the Dims can either replace Thomas, or pack the court. There will be no slowdown by Dims during the next two years.
We need to start planning ahead on the PLCAA eventually getting overturned. At some point, sooner or later, whether we like it or not (we won’t), it will get overturned by the Leftist Scum ™.
Could we possibly sue the federal government over getting it overturned, since it protects the 2A against harassment and infringement? IE, the people of the US v federal government that such lawsuits infringe on the 2A?
Perhaps if gun company ‘X’ gets sued and lost, could they counter-sue claiming their right to manufacture guns was being infringed? Justice Thomas has to know they will use any trick they can pull to kill the 2A, can we in any way insulate them from civil lawsuits?
i remember an old phase from a football coach—–‘a strong offense is the best defense’—–the firearm industry should also sue for not only manufacturing guns, but also for selling them, transporting them, since they cannot be made, lost wages of all employees of the company, lost income from all the local gun shops thru out the world, lost wage of their employees, etc. etc. etc.—find a great johnny c. lawyer that can throw as much b.s. as the states lawyers, (sue them too).
PLCAA is legislation, and, as you note, can be overturned by legislation. At the moment, it seems the main line of attack is “advertising”. Penetrating PLCAA via “false, or misleading, advertisement” would be a signal success, opening quite the avenue. 2A does not shield business from violations of laws regarding advertising.
With the recent loss of judgeship appointments, expect Schumer to begin a strong campaign to eliminate the backlog of open judicial positions. Though the Dims man not be able to fill an SC vacancy, or pack the courts, delay is its own success; delay puts all our protected rights at risk.
again and again the GUNMAKERS refuse to stop selling guns to the GOV”T. If S&W Stood up and said WE No Longer will sell any Guns to the State and Local Gov’t’s of Delaware and New Jersey Due to the State laws Against US, then how much of a shitstorm will that cause? If a coalition of gunmakers will do that and ammo makers refuse to sell AMMO to them too, What do you think will happen? Think that option will be chosen? Nope. Sometime it’s easier to toss a grenade in and see how much damage that will cause no one expected.
I suspect that other gun makers would step in. It has to be all or nothing.
“I suspect that other gun makers would step in. It has to be all or nothing.”
Each is hoping to be the last one standing; capturing the market abandoned by all the others.
I think the grenade approach will get everyone’s attention the fastest.
“Each is hoping to be the last one standing; capturing the market“
Exactly, the manufacturers will prioritize profits over any consideration of either constitutional rights or duty to help protect society from bad actors.
Expecting a private corporation to act responsibly in the public interest without any sort of societal control or regulation is a fools errand.
This is why a robust regulatory scheme is required.
MajorStupidity,
Let’s examine your “premise” by applying it to another situation/constitutional right, and see how it stand up, eh??
“Exactly, the [book publishers/mainstream media/gun control advocates/nametheLeftistfacistcauseofyourchoice] will prioritize profits [and/or power] over any consideration of either constitutional rights or duty to help protect society from bad actors [like themselves].
Expecting a private corporation [Leftist ‘non-profit’/’public interest’ lobbyist] to act responsibly in the public interest without any sort of societal control or regulation is a fools errand.
“This is why a robust regulatory scheme is required.”
Are you BEGINNING to get a glimmer of a clue of how your Leftist/fascism works, you brain-dead clown???. Go fornicate a rubber duck and have bouncing babies, you logic-challenged @$$wipe.
This is why a robust regulatory scheme is required.”
well actually … probably not. If they did jump into such a void it would bring more attention to them and their sales to public consumers and they would end up being sued.
The U.S. firearms industry manufacturing and market is based upon that the 2A exists as a SPECIFIC right for individuals to keep and bear arms and that its a free market economy. There is no other thing on the market in any market other than firearms that are constitutionally protected with a SPECIFIC right in the U.S. constitution for people to have. In other words, firearms are the only products sold in the U.S. to which individuals have a SPECIFIC U.S. constitutionally protected right to have and buy and sell.
No one has a SPECIFIC U.S. constitutionally protected right to a car, or a home, or alcohol, or tobacco, or pot, or abortion, or anything else except firearms. There is no where in the constitution or bill of rights that grants/gives a SPECIFIC constitutionally protected right to any other product on the market to individuals other than firearms (and most if not all of the ‘associated’ things that goes with firearms).
There actually IS NOT a U.S. constitutionally protected right for the government or law enforcement to have firearms. Its an assumed ‘right’ thing under the constitution the ‘governments’ (e.g. federal, states, county, city) granted unto them selves through their supposed ‘obligation and duty’ to ‘protect’ under the “provide for the common defence” portion concept of the constitution. An obligation and duty it turns out they don’t really have after all according to SCOTUS decisions that police and government have no duty to protect the public.
So it might be constitutionally correct to ban firearms for government and law enforcement, after all, according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence …”… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Just to note also… it does not say “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed majority…” – individuals are the ‘governed’ also.
correction and clarification:
“So it might be constitutionally correct to ban firearms for government and law enforcement…”
should have been..
So it might be constitutionally correct to ban/restrict firearms for government and law enforcement…
and, to clarify … make, at a minimum, all government/law enforcement ‘personnel’ and entities (federal.state,county,city) that use/possess firearms subject to submitting a form 4473 for each and every firearm they use for each person that uses them and make the individuals pay the ‘fee’ tax for NFA items and subject them, in their official capacities, to the same restrictions and bans us civilians are subject to now. After all, these ‘government’ entities acting as government entities, in that action in those official capacities, do not have a specific constitutional right to have firearms and their justification for having them does not actually exist ’cause according to SCOTUS decision they have no duty to protect (see what I wrote above) and its that ‘duty’ which formed the basis of them being armed. Whereas, the individual ‘governed’ non-government entity as individuals do have a specific constitutionally protected right to have firearms.
So lets “we the people” decide what firearms government entities can have or not have and what they are subjected to for firearms restrictions and bans for them instead of them deciding what our constitutional right will or will not be. This is how it was suppose to work, the founding fathers even said so even if they agreed with all provisions of the constitution and bill of rights or not, that government power ‘rights’ are subjected to the peoples decisions and not the people subjected to the governments decisions for our rights.
“according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence”
The declaration of independence is an aspirational document, generated before there was a United States of America.
As such, it’s just a statement of philosophy of some wealthy men in the North American colonies.
@Miner49er
“The declaration of independence is an aspirational document, generated before there was a United States of America.
As such, it’s just a statement of philosophy of some wealthy men in the North American colonies.”
False
he Declaration of Independence is a founding document declaring independence in our own right and the document from which the Constitution principals of our government were derived. The Declaration of Independence dates back to 1776 which is when the United States was formally founded only by that document.
And this stupid statement from you > “…generated before there was a United States of America.” try harder next time, I’m sure there is a bit more stupid in you that you can grunt out.
The U.S. Constitution wasn’t written until the Constitutional Convention, from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It carries forth the principals of being declared independent by forming our government officially.
@Ansel Hazen November 17, 2022 At 21:24
“I think the grenade approach will get everyone’s attention the fastest.”
Businesses are not reliable flag bearers. “The business of business is business.” Barrett made a stance against LA some ten years ago. While laudable, the City of LA, and its police department do not seem to have been disadvantaged at all. No other firearms/ammunition businesses refused to supply the LAPD, just out of principled opposition to LA’s draconian gun control laws.
Now, if NRA really had power, had principles, it could lead/conduct a successful boycott of all the police departments in Californication.
rat-lawyer fag-mofos, keep sucking gun control dick & swallowing. proceed @ your own risk.
On another level, I find it a “good thing” that firearms companies are departing the fascist “blue” states for more welcoming locations. Once ALL the firearms companies have moved to “red” jurisdictions, they can refuse to sell their products to jurisdictions that don’t respect their rights (outlawing their products, passing laws asserting liability of firearms manufacturers for THIRD PARTY misuse of their product, etc.). “Oh, Trenton just passed laws outlawing magazines over 10 rounds, and allowing people to sue gun manufacturers to be sued for selling a legal product that functioned as advertised? Great, tell the Trenton PD to pound sand on that order for 100 new ‘assault rifles’ and 200 handguns with 15 round magazines.”
So if I get hit by a car I can sue the car maker, right?
By their logic then auto mfgrs should be libel when drivers of their products are in accidents.