The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and Roe v Wade

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Passed in 2005...

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Dismissed suits
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Ileto v. Glock, ending a lawsuit against Glock by the family of victims in the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting.

The Brady Center and families of victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting sued Lucky Gunner, the online store where some of the ammunition was purchased. Federal judge Richard Paul Matsch dismissed the charges. He ordered the plaintiffs to pay Lucky Gunner's legal fees under a separate Colorado law, HB 000-208.

In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The Roe v Wade decision and consequent laws prompted a political division among the people into pro-choice and pro-life. Many pro-life folks want to see this decision overturned.

Many pro-control folks want to see Heller v DC overturned and would applaud SLAPP style lawsuits against gun makers.

Both of these decisions and the associated laws have vocal minorities pressing for their overturn/repeal. It is my opinion the Congress and SC carry on a tradition of wisdom which began with the spirit that eventual created the USA. Most of our party applauds the Roe v Wade choices available today.

If a majority of voters was shown to be against the PLCAA and it was overturned to applause of many Democrats, would it be fair to find that a majority disapproved of the current pro-choice options and to pass laws making abortion a crime?

I believe that the law reflects aspects and attributes of the human condition and is not just based on the capricious whims of the majority.

[Duckhunter935]

1. Well stated

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Thanks

[gejohnston]

2. or even go as far as filing

wrongful death suits in the name of "Baby Doe" to push clinics with low-profit margins out of business. Of course, the suits will be meritless, but lawyers aren't cheap. The anti-choice people are using some of the same tactics as the anti-gun people. The restrictions on clinics in Texas had no valid health and safety reasons but did add to the expense of operation, not to mention the construction costs to comply. The comparison goes even further when one looks at the abortion restrictions in many European countries.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Suing shouldn't be a hobby

Last edited Mon Oct 17, 2016, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

If it is, the costs shouldn't be tax deductible.

[gejohnston]

7. I always tell the feminists on Facebook

and DU that the pro-choice people need their own SAF equivalent. The odd thing is that the anti-gun ladies get pissed off.

[Eleanors38]

5. Good comparison. I think controllers here have added yet another layer of dishonesty to their...

...outlook by pretending to the PLCAA is anything other than legislation to prevent grossly abused lawsuits as a means of harassment of gun manufacturers. This dishonesty is on full display here in DU, and will contributed to the diminishment of this prohibitionist issue; after all, fewer and fewer people want to be associated with such baldly corrupt "intellectual" approaches after we have seen the likes of Donald tRump?

[Duckhunter935]

6. I notice all of our resident controllers

Are silent, almost deafening

[pablo_marmol]

11. We'll continue to lie, and piss away congressional seats. It's what we *proudly* do.

This article could/should be posted as a stand-alone OP.......the author states the case for our self-destructive behavior very well. What's interesting is his use of the past tense. (The left blew it.........to be distinguished from is blowing it.)

I wonder if posting an article from Mother Jones would constitute spouting "right wing talking points"?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/dan-baum-gun-guys-interview

Edited to add money quote:

"You will hear people say gun owners are accessories to murder, and it's just the wrong way to talk about people. I spent my whole life among liberal Democrats who are so achingly careful to say all the right, supportive things about Hispanics, immigrants, gays, transsexuals, and blacks, and they will say the most godawful things about gun owners, calling them "gun nuts" or "penis compensators." The gun represents a worldview that we on the left do not share. The gun represents individualism over collectivism, American exceptionalism over internationalism. It's a totem of the other tribe and we don't like the other tribe. The tragedy is, we seem to think by attacking the totem we're going to weaken the opposing tribe, but it's just the opposite. Republicans love it when we do this sort of thing. It's their best organizing tool. Gun owners are kind of a free-fire zone for lefties."

[Eleanors38]

12. Heh. "[The AR-15] is like a guitar that makes everyone play like Jerry Garcia."

[pablo_marmol]

8. As others have stated, well said DIS.

The Controllers appear to be too dim to realize that their position on the PLCAA is a sword that cuts both ways.

[pablo_marmol]

9. And how about this..............

If gun manufacturers can be sued when their products are abused by criminals why can't citizens/families of citizens sue the state when their loved ones are victimized by criminals because they are left defenseless due to fact that their state forbids concealed carry?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I wanted to add also from 15 U.S. Code § 7901:

"Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended."

A business which conforms to laws in there state and to federal laws regarding their operation should not be subject to civil suits seeking damages from these businesses for the crimes of others.