The anti-gunners don’t like the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act very much. The PLCAA means they can’t bankrupt the firearm industry because of criminal actions conducted by third parties.
That’s what they were trying before the PLCAA became a thing. It’s why the PLCAA was passed, in fact.
But they’ve been trying to undermine it with every fiber of their being. The Mexico lawsuit was, in many ways, their Hail Mary at destroying it. That didn’t work out for them.
The thing is, while states are trying to remove restrictions and anti-gun members of Congress want to see the law go away, the reality is that the entire claim is beyond stupid.
Over at ConcealedCarry.com, they highlight a few reasons this is moronic.
Imagine if other industries were held to the same insane standard:
- Knife companies sued every time someone gets stabbed.
- Bic sued for every arson involving one of their lighters.
- Ford sued when a getaway car is used in a bank robbery.
- Apple sued because a terrorist texted someone before an attack.
It’s absurd on its face. We don’t sue manufacturers for how people choose to misuse otherwise lawful products. But when it comes to firearms, anti-gun politicians want a special exception.
Here is a quote from the Everytown For Gun Safety website, which is a long-time anti-gun lobbyist group:
PLCAA blocks legal responsibility for gun manufacturers that have failed to innovate and make guns safer, and for manufacturers, distributors and dealers with irresponsible, reckless and negligent sales practices that contribute to the flood of illegal firearms in our communities.
How silly is that? The PLCAA doesn’t protect manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from liability when they break the law. So I’m left to assume that following the current laws, which I feel are burdensome, Everytown for Gun Safety perceives to be reckless. I would love to hear what they think a dealer or gun maker should be doing above and beyond the extreme regulation they are already subjected to.
They know they can’t ban guns outright, so their plan is to drown the industry in lawsuits. That’s what Connecticut just did by allowing state officials and private citizens to sue gunmakers, even when those gunmakers have followed every law and regulation.
Exactly.
See, they don’t seem to understand that criminals will obtain whatever guns they can. They’re not marketed to directly and while they may want certain things in a firearm, they’re also the things that millions more law-abiding folks want in a firearm for self-defense.
There’s absolutely no way for lawful gun manufacturers to do anything about the criminals getting the guns they make, in part because those criminals aren’t buying guns from them.
Most of the time, they’re not even buying them; they’re just stealing them.
When they do purchase them, the vast majority are purchased from black market dealers, who didn’t get them lawfully in the first place either.
So on every level, the gun makers aren’t responsible for arming the bad guys. Despite that, these turdnuggets want to punish them anyway, and make no mistake here. The process is the punishment. They want to bury them in lawsuits until they just stop operating.
You don’t need to ban guns if there are no guns available.
As noted above, this argument isn’t applied to pretty much any other company.
Jack Daniel’s isn’t sued because someone got drunk and drove their car. Estwing doesn’t get sued after someone is beaten to death with one of their hammers.
It’s just the gun industry that’s responsible for actions beyond its control in these people’s eyes. The fact that anyone takes this seriously is how we know that mental disabilities are a major problem in certain groups of activists.
Read the full article here
