Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) Posted on 11/17/2019 7:55:54 AM PST by marktwain
On 12 November, 2019, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Remington Arms Company to a Connecticut Supreme Court decision. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled a lawsuit against Remington could proceed, under an exception the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
This is a serious threat to the Second Amendment. If a firearms manufacturer can be sued, simply for selling legal products, most manufacturers can be destroyed by lawsuits funded by governmental organizations.Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
The purpose of the PLCAA was to prevent these types of lawsuits. Here are the purposes of the PLCAA as written in the act:
The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.
(2) To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(3) To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I doubt that will stick; but it is a high emotional case in Connecticutt.
I don't see the liberals in Ct making a cogent and logical decision. They've been a pain in the ass since the inception of the Constitution.
Insurance and public ed will destroy this country before socialism gets its pants on.
This is just a preliminary try to set the stage to get the deep pocket manufacturers liable. Next victims will be auto makers because there are more auto deaths each year and they have very deep pockets.
This case is not a Lawful Commerce In Firearms Act case. It is a case that involves a CT state law against misleading or reckless advertising.
The State contends that Bushmaster advertised their patrol rifle as suitable “for your next mission.” The State claims that this was recklessly aimed at potential mass shooters.
Let the case play out in court.
Time to sue the state for lack of mental health services and lack of police protection.
If gun manufacturers are responsible for that which they can not control, then the state IS RESPONSIBLE for those things they do control.
This shows there are really only three conservatives on the Supreme Court.
They needed a fourth to take the case and could not get it.
Do what Winchester did and move out of the country.
The plaintiffs will be stuck with a huge bill from the Remington lawyers just like the Aurora plaintiffs and all the liberal gun grabbers will shine about how unfair it is.
I doubt that will stick; but it is a high emotional case in Connecticut.
***********
I wouldn’t put much faith in reason or laws these days.
Why sue Remington?
This is sort of like national reciprocity. If you live in NJ you'd LOVE National reciprocity. But a 5-4 anti-reciprocity ruling may screw the pro-CCW states' gains. Better for the people in NJ to suffer for now vs bring down the whole country.
I think it was premature to petition SCOTUS in this case. The case needs to run its course. It could well go the way of the Aurora the theater case where the plaintiffs lost and the defendants were awarded attorney fees and costs. Those families were left with huge bills for their troubles. The Brady bunch left them high and dry since they were of no further use to the gun banners cause.
By refusing to hear this case it’s apparent that the SCOTUS is on a mission to aid the killing of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The US Constitution be damned! The oath of public office means nothing any longer unless it can be used to remove President Trump, as Nancy Pelosi has proclaimed.
Remington owns Bushmaster
I’m with you. A lot of knee jerking on this thread.
[[most manufacturers can be destroyed by lawsuits funded by governmental organizations.]]
“Have you or a loved one been injured on the job while working for (fill in the blank)? Then call Martin hardly and hardly for a free estimate- you coudl be entitled to a large cash settlement”
“Have you or a loved one suffered hearing loss while taking the drug (fill in the blank)? Then call Martin Hardly and Hardly for a free estimate- you could be entitled to a large cash settlement, and we’ll sue this company right out of business”
“Have you or a loved one suffered mental health issues while taking the drug (fill in the blank)? Then call Martin Hardly and Hardly for a free estimate- you could be entitled to a large cash settlement, and we’ll sue this company right out of business”
There's an excellent analysis in the comments section of the article. Basically the SCOTUS wants it to be adjudicated at the state level no matter the outcome. If it rules in favor of Remington, end of case end of story.
If Remington loses then it will end up in the lap of the SCOTUS where they will likely overturn it since they have done so before.......
He was driving a late model Mercedes when he wandered over the double yellow line.
Too bad my sister didn't know that she could have sued Daimler Benz for millions of Deutchmarks because they shouldn't have been marketing a deadly weapon to habitual drunks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.