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/

A Criminal Level of Congressional Ignorance

I watched a bit of the House Committee hearing on HR1808 (Federal “assault Weapons” Ban). And I’m re-watching the entirety on YouTube today.

I’m almost speechless. I’ve long said that Congress, especially where it regards gun control, is fundamentally and willfully ignorant about the lawful and Constitutionally protected item that they wish to legislate against.

The stunning display of un-education by the Democrats on the Committee not only spoke to my statement above….but underlined it, bolded it and finished with an exclamation point.

Even if you support gun control, do you support such ignorance? Either they’re stupid…..or they think you’re stupid.

My favorite debacle so far:

Rep Cicilline on stabilizing braces: “When attached here, it turns this weapon into an automatic weapon. It becomes a bump stock, and so it will allow that to essentially be fired like an automatic weapon. That’s the danger.”

Cue the (((Facepalm)))……..

But wait, the genius from Rhode Island isn’t done!

“No one has said it is a bump stock, but what we are saying is it harnesses the semiautomatic fire recoil and it operates like a bump stock because subsequent shots occur in rapid succession. That’s exactly what a bump stock does.”

And another gem: “It (AR-15) was designed to kill someone wearing a military helmet. What that does to a civilian wearing nothing — is liquify organs.”

This from a PhD who used to fly helicopters for the Marines and “her research focuses on the intersection of social integration and military effectiveness, with a focus on gender and unconventional warfare.” Uh huh.

And from Eric Swalwell, D-CA: “There is never an instance where an assault weapon can be classified as a “weapon of defense.” The only way to describe these dangerous firearms are “weapons of war.”

There is no such animal as a “defensive firearm”….or an “offensive firearm”.

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.

Dusting off a previous rebuttal…..

I’ve written several times over the years, about the illogical restrictions on our Constitutional and Civil Right, pushed by both major political parties; gun control being the campaign du jour of the Left.

“Universal Background Checks” are again being touted as legislation designed to curb shootings…mass or otherwise.

So, allow me to dust off a post from early 2018, that makes the same point I would makes today:

One of the proposals currently being considered, by the Right and the Left….is the notion of “Universal Background Checks” [UBC]. One of the misconceptions used in this argument, is that there is some sort of loophole in the law, often referred to by the ignorant, as a “gun show loophole”. There is nothing of the sort. People attending gun shows wishing to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, undergoes the same NICS process as they would a gun show. Those wishing to conduct a purchase from another private citizen selling at the show, does so without NICS, just as they would were they to conduct a transaction with their neighbor.

When we propose legislation, we require an enforcement mechanism. In other words, if you fail to abide in accordance with the law, there is a consequence. With UBCs however, there is no enforcement mechanism, because the State has no means to be apprised if a Citizen has violated the law.

For example, if UBC is statute law, and I sell my firearm to my neighbor without taking him/her to an FFL dealer…..how does the State know? If my neighbor proceeds to use said purchased firearm in the commission of a crime, and is apprehended……unless he/she confesses to the lawful transaction…..how does the State know that the law was violated.

The obvious answer is, that without a mandatory registration of ALL firearms, there is no enforcement mechanism for UBCs.

If you think there is righteous pushback on UBC…..wait until the gun control cabal tries to proffer registration…..

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…”

Why Pot Legalization Benefits the 2A

An article from the Libertarian site Based Politics, posted in it’s entirety.

The potential legalization of marijuana has become a very hot topic of late, with the federal government making some pro-legalization noises. Legalization has been a core tenant of libertarianism for years, of course, so most libertarians are thrilled.

However, the truth is that legalization may well yield significant benefits for the Second Amendment.

You see, under federal law, it’s illegal for anyone who uses a schedule 1 controlled substance to also possess a firearm. Also under current federal law, guess what’s classified as a schedule 1 controlled substance?

That’s right, marijuana.

While numerous states have legalized pot to some degree, that doesn’t negate federal law on the matter.

Many may not see the big deal. After all, most gun laws seem to be enforced at the state and local levels, and if they legalize marijuana, surely they won’t worry about federal regulations.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

In 2017, Honolulu police cross-referenced medical marijuana permits with gun permits, then demanded those with both to turn in their weapons.

The same thing happened in 2018 in Pennsylvania.

In 2019, a Maine man filed a lawsuit to challenge the law after he was convicted.

So yeah, this is an issue — and it’s a serious one. Especially for people who may be suffering, yet refuse to use this particular treatment out of fear they’ll face prosecution which, if found guilty, would strip them of their gun rights for life.

Yet federal legislation legalizing marijuana would change all that, depending on how the law was structured. Even rescheduling the drug to schedule 2 would likely eliminate many of the problems. Schedule 2 drugs are tightly controlled but are eligible to be prescribed by a physician. Further, though, using those drugs lawfully isn’t grounds for prosecution.

The best case is outright legalization. At this point, we have loads of data showing that legalization does not lead to more crimes or even more use of heavier drugs, so there’s no reason not to legalize it. Yet, at a minimum, we need medical legalization.

Then, those who have marijuana cards won’t have to worry about someone sending them a letter demanding their guns simply because they’re getting medically treated.

And since gun owners will be free to use it to treat any number of conditions such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD, it’s ultimately going to be a good thing for them.

Frankly, this should have happened long, long ago.

Yes, a long time ago. At the very least, when the 21st Amendment was ratified.