Another Flawed Argument Against the PLCAA

From a typically (somewhat) rational forum for analysis of US national security law and policy – Just Security. A typically flawed argument for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA):

Since its adoption in 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has largely shielded gun manufacturers from civil liability suits. Although originally designed to deflect frivolous litigation, PLCAA has been invoked and interpreted expansively over the years in U.S. courts in a way that jeopardizes the right to a remedy to which survivors of gun violence and their family members are entitled, including under international human rights law. As the momentum to dismantle PLCAA steadily gains ground, international law and norms further support the case for the law’s repeal.

Congress should repeal PLCAA for myriad reasons, including to ensure judicial relief as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international commitments the United States has undertaken.

So much wrong in such a long article. The authors even cite portions of the law, which seem to undermine their own argument. The bottom line is this – the gun control cabal seeks to limit, restrict or negate the 2nd Amendment (and Natural) Rights of Citizens to keep, carry, store, manufacture and utilize firearms any way they can. The PLCAA was passed specifically, not as some sort of special privilege to firearm sellers and manufacturers, but to ensure that industry has the same legal protections as any other sector in American society……protections against frivolous and malign lawsuits, seeking damages or worse, against third party, uninvolved and non-complicit entities.

Victims and their families already have legal and financial recourse against the party or parties that committed a criminal act against them. To cite the oft-used (but entirely appropriate) analogies – a Citizen cannot (successfully) sue Ford, if a drunk driver injured them or killed a family member. Why? Because Ford (or eve another party widening the chain of custody) sold a lawful product to a customer who was legally qualified to acquire it.

And just as other consumer products are open to, firearm manufacturers and sellers are culpable if they make or sell an unsafe, defective product….or sell a product to a customer who is prohibited from acquiring it. To restate – the PLCAA ensures that the firearm industry and retailers have the same basic legal responsibilities and protections as any other consumer good.

But wait, the PLCAA (as the authors do note) have six specific exemptions not common to other consumer goods, that allow for the pursuit of legal recourse to be brought before a court – negligent entrustment, actions for breach of contract in connection with a purchase, and actions brought for damage caused to individuals or property due to a design or manufacturing defect.

And still….the gun control camp isn’t satisfied. They don’t actually care about fairness under the law. Victims and plaintiffs already have access to the courts to seek redress from the person or persons who transgressed against them. The gun control camp wants to eradicate the firearm industry using perfidious backdoor means, since their repeated frontal assaults against the 2A have come to naught.

Remember this, and the other asinine attempts (1000% taxes on firearms, registration for ammunition, “assault weapons” bans, etc…..) each and every time you see them bleat “we don’t want to take away anyone’s guns”.

Good Job, Dumbasses

The law of unintended consequences bites the short-sighted (and quite frankly absurd) right in the ass.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new gun bill on Friday that is explicitly modeled after Texas’ unprecedented abortion law. The state is now the first to allow citizens to sue people who make or sell banned weapons, state officials said.

The bill, SB 1327, allows Californians to sue those making, selling, transporting or distributing illegal assault weapons or ghost guns for at least $10,000 in damages. Gun dealers who illegally sell firearms to those under the age of 21 could also be liable for the same damages.

https://abc7.com/governor-signs-gun-bill-modeled-after-abortion-law/12068039/

Heroism in Indiana

Copied from Gun Free Zone – This is why we practice:

Police say the “Good Samaritan” who ended a mass shooting at an Indiana mall by killing the gunman saved lives, noting that it only took two minutes from the time the suspect opened fire until when he was shot.

The Good Samaritan, who was identified as Elisjsha Dicken, engaged the gunman within two minutes of the start of the shooting Sunday at Greenwood Park Mall. Police said Dicken approached the gunman from a distance and fired 10 rounds of ammunition at him, striking and killing him before he could retreat to a nearby bathroom.

“His actions were nothing short of heroic,” Ison said. “He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun. He was very proficient in that, very tactically sound. And as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him.”

This is man is a civilian, no military or law enforcement background, but he knew to respond quickly to a mass shooter, was proficient with his firearm, and took out the shooter without hitting bystanders.

This is a man who clearly practiced with his firearms and invested the time and money to develop his skills on his own.

He hit the shooter at 40-50 yards with a Glock 9mm.

This young man can out shoot most military and law enforcement in the country.

Dicken didn’t just kill an active shooter, he murdered the entire anti-concealed carry hand wringing that untrained civilians with guns make these situations more dangerous.

Fucking legend.

This guy should never have to pay for a drink in a bar ever again.”

No added commentary from me….not necessary.

Gun Control Canards

I invite any gun control proponents [as I long have] to define the following:

“Weapons of war” – Please identify a class of firearms that have NOT been used in armed conflict.

“Military Grade” – Define please.

“Military style” – Define please.

“High Capacity” – Define please. And while you’re at it, please justify an arbitrary number of a lawful item, where having that number is lawful, but having one more than that number is criminal.

“High powered” – Define please.

“Assault / offensive / defensive weapon” – Define please.

Hunting – Please define what firearms are suitable for hunting and which, in your opinion, are not.

Sure, I know that nobody is likely to try and define the above, from the gun control perspective. But my point is this, legislation that seeks to curtail, regulate or restrict a Citizens actions with regard to a Constitutional Right……it should be deliberate, thoughtful and based on definable metrics and endstates…..not emotion.

SMH……

I’m going to rhetorically lose my shit if the current Commander in Chief utters the same stale, tired and false LIES about the 2nd Amendment and firearm ownership

Seriously……does he not have anyone in his team who actually has an understanding of our Civil Rights? Or does he just trot out the same tropes for the sake of political gamesmanship?

Fact check, with regard to Biden’s not just latest, but consistent remarks………early American Citizens could actually own (and did) a cannon, thank you very much.

Trifecta of Gun Control Lies

From POTUS’s speech yesterday, on his second nominee for chief gun controller, as well as his tirade against “ghost guns”!!!!!

Three verified [and sadly predictable] lies, captured and rebutted by Spencer Brown at Town Hall.

1. “You couldn’t buy a cannon…”

2. “Gun manufacturers have more immunity…”

3. “I got it done once—ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines…”

Well, that didn’t take long….

As I opined here, here and here, it didn’t think it would take long for a SCOTUS ruling upholding Texas’ egregious* abortion law [SB8], to translate into similar efforts regrading firearms. Precedence may rear it’s legislative head.

Here comes Gavin Newsome:

If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives. We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA.Twitter

Is it going to work? With California, it’s hard to say….but file this under, watch what you wish for….

*I’m not commenting on the topic of abortion itself rather the means by which this law is enforceable.

Damn Girl……One Shot, One Kill!

A female Montana Army National Guard Soldier graduated from the U.S. Army Sniper Course at Fort Benning, Ga on Nov. 5, becoming the first woman in history to complete the course.

The Soldier began the U.S. Army Sniper Course in Sept. 2021. This intensive seven week course trains selected individuals assigned to sniper positions in the skills necessary to deliver long range precision fire and the collection of battlefield information.

Link

A momentous achievement. This course is not for the faint of heart, will or body. As a graduate of the Army Sniper School in 1992, I can attest first hand on what it takes to complete the course, and graduate to be qualified as a Sniper. Good on her!

Me on the Sniper School stalking course, 1992. Rifle is on front of me, in the drag bag.

Thoughts on the Virginia Elections

Though I’m an Oregon Duck [U of O] through and through, Virginia has been my adopted state since late 2008, when I retired from the Army [or the John Wayne Lifelong School for Wayward Boys].

I’ve watched several elections here with varying amounts of interest, this a bit more so than others……even though there was no Libertarian candidate in any of the races I could have cast a ballot for. Some random thoughts below:

Good on Winsome Sears for winning [though I really don’t get the business attire/firearm photo that seems to be trendy among the virtue-signalling Right]. It’s a good win for the Virginia GOP, though most Virginians are waking up this morning and researching exactly what the hell the Lt Gov even does.

More concerning to civil liberties, is the AG race, which last time I checked, is still too close to call.

Youngkin is secretly thanking McAuliffe for handing him the victory, by way of his asinine comment during the last debate. All most knew about him before then was that he liked basketball. His rhetoric of an enormous education budget is worrisome, especially if he doesn’t throw a bone to the large home-school population of this State, like all of his GOP predecessors failed to do. Since the 1977 Gubernatorial election, the party out of power in the White House, has only lost one election for Governor. In 11 out of 12 elections, only Terry McAuliffe has bucked that trend during the Obama Administration…..so this isn’t exactly a momentous occasion.

The Second Amendment Foundation [of which I’m a member] published the following:

“Old Dominion gun owners were not about to allow anti-gun Democrats enjoy another two years of power after what happened in January 2020. They knew what Terry McAuliffe’s return to Richmond would mean for their Second Amendment rights. His party’s politics of attacking gun owners, and their outrageous record of eroding gun rights brought gun owners to the polls to say enough is enough.”

“What is most gratifying, was to see savvy gun rights voters ignore the despicable last-minute ad buy by desperate Democrats to suppress the gun vote by painting Republican Glenn Youngkin as an anti-gunner, when it is their own candidate who has a deplorable record on gun rights.”

To be sure, Youngkin seemed like and empty suit [or fleece vest] up until McAuliffe’s education gaffe. He never really took a strong position, that I saw, on 2nd Amendment Rights……..even in a year where SCOTUS started hearing oral arguments [today I believe] in a landmark NY case.

So, Trump…..or overt lack of ties to Trump aside…we’ll see how a Youngkin Administration pans out for civil liberties. I have an open mind, but I’m not exactly brimming over with confidence in any Republican.

The (Still) Unconstitutionality of the Texas Abortion Law

The Firearms Policy Coalition filed an Amicus brief supporting the Plaintiffs in the current lawsuit against Texas S.B. 8 set to go before SCOTUS. The entire brief is worth the read, if you’re a gun rights policy nerd like me…….but the conclusion is below:

This case is important not because of its specific subject matter of abortion, but instead for Texas’s cavalier and contemptuous mechanism for shielding from review potential violations of constitutional rights as determined by this Court’s precedents. It is one thing to disagree with precedents and seek their revision or reversal through judicial, congressional, or constitutional avenues; it is another simply to circumvent judicial review by delegating state action to the citizenry at large and then claiming, with a wink and a nod, that no state actors are involved.

From Amicus’s perspective, if pre-enforcement review can be evaded in the context of abortion it can and will be evaded in the context of the right to keep and bear arms. While the political valences of those issues seem to be opposites, the structural circumstances are too similar to ignore. As with Roe and Casey, many States view Heller as wrongly decided. Those States, with the help of many circuit courts, have showed an ongoing refusal to accept the holding in Heller and a continuing creativity in seeking to circumvent any protections for, and to chill the exercise of, Second Amendment rights. It is hardly speculation to suggest that if Texas succeeds in its gambit here, New York, California, New Jersey, and others will not be far behind in adopting equally aggressive gambits to not merely chill but to freeze the right to keep and bear arms.