Biden gets one right.

[Cthulhu85]

I can go pull videos of how much freedom Australians had during COVID when their government decided they should no longer have it. Australia was one of the most restrictive governments on the planet. They had internment camps for Pete's sake.

Charity News | Charity Today News - The #1 for charity news!

The latest UK and World charity news courtesy of Charity Today News. Find the leading stories, opinion, pictures and video on the latest events.

www.charitytoday.co.uk

Loading…

www.google.com

We weren't put under as strict restrictions because they couldn't. They lied about it. They exerted immense social pressure. They shut down schools. They closed up businesses. They did everything they could to lock people up but they couldn't go as far as Australia. Why?

View embedded media

Because even Gravy SEALS are a threat when they have guns. Particularly high powered ones.

An unarmed populace is only as free as their government decides they can be on that day. Democracy did nothing for the Australians in that internment camp when a 2 vote majority decided to lock them up. As the officer said, "You just have to do what you are told."

My house isn't on fire, guess I don't need insurance. I have never lived in one that burnt to the ground. I have seen others, but not me. I haven't had a car wreck in years, guess I don't need collision insurance. There are doctors around who can take care of me so what is the point of exercise and eating healthy? No one has ever robbed me, why lock the doors? Most people are good.

I am not saying the government is coming to get anyone at the moment and I am not advocating armed rebellion against this government. I am saying that I want an insurance policy should this government decide to, I don't know, arbitrarily lock up people of Japanese descent in concentration camps because of a conflict with their country of origin. That could never happen in a good place like this, we have a trustworthy government.

And for every 100 gravy seals there's a dude who stays in shape, stays proficient and just wants to be left alone.

People readily forget the Japanese internment because they fought valiantly for this country, went back home afterwards, and didn't bitch about it unlike others even though they should have. Oh, and because democrats did it. That was less than 100 years ago.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Victim Stories Archives - MADD

madd.org

If these folks could have a good time without the booze, these people would still be here...but you gotta have your beer/whiskey/vodka/etc. to have a good time.

What happened to those kids was terrible. Unfortunately having to deal with some people's bad decisions is a byproduct of living in "freedom". Free people don't always make good decisions. I can think of all sorts of freedoms we can yank back if we want to help save children. Alcohol would be near the top of that list. Drinking it has no social utility and it wrecks families and lives. But that's different right.

There’s also the small matter that the right to fireball isn’t enshrined in the constitution.

 

[DrHoops]

I bought a fake voter drop box with my S&W dividend check. We are organized for 2024.

That’s the way the modern Republican Party works. Since they don’t have any policy solutions, their solution is to cheat.

By the way…that’s not a very good long term plan.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

That’s the way the modern Republican Party works. Since they don’t have any policy solutions, their solution is to cheat.

By the way…that’s not a very good long term plan.

Irony.

 

[DrHoops]

Irony.

Give us a few.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Are you trying to argue the case?

Or argue the topic of the thread?

The makers of Everclear don't have any civil immunity codified by Federal law. Why don't you stay on topic?

I am on topic. I'm trying to get people to think about the reasoning behind civil liability by looking at analogous situations. It's how a court will look at it, even after civil immunity is lifted.

I agree with the goal of limiting/eliminating civilian ownership of mass-killing weapons. I'm also concerned about the rule of law and logical consistency. I also like just thinking things through, no matter the political outcome.

 

[snarlcakes]

I am on topic. I'm trying to get people to think about the reasoning behind civil liability by looking at analogous situations. It's how a court will look at it, even after civil immunity is lifted.

I agree with the goal of limiting/eliminating civilian ownership of mass-killing weapons. I'm also concerned about the rule of law and logical consistency. I also like just thinking things through, no matter the political outcome.

Maybe you can answer my questions. If they lift immunity, do you have any idea what it would do for the cost of guns? Also, if the costs did skyrocket to the point that most of society couldn’t purchaser guns. Would it be a violation of the 2nd amendment? Is there any precedent?

 

[larsIU]

I am not saying the government is coming to get anyone at the moment and I am not advocating armed rebellion against this government. I am saying that I want an insurance policy should this government decide to, I don't know, arbitrarily lock up people of Japanese descent in concentration camps because of a conflict with their country of origin. That could never happen in a good place like this, we have a trustworthy government.

So your contention is that, noting there is no external threat, the feds will start rounding up gun owners? Or that they'll round up evengelicals? Or "patriots"?

The decision to lock up the Japanese in 1942 was certainly not arbritrary. THEY'D JUST BOMBED PEARL HARBOR.
Come on. You don't have to agree with it (I don't) but it wasn't arbitrary.

Unfortunately having to deal with some people's bad decisions is a byproduct of living in "freedom".

Legalize everything then. Tomorrow. No reason you can't own a tank if you can afford it and somebody will sell it to you.

And for every 100 gravy seals there's a dude who stays in shape, stays proficient and just wants to be left alone.

I admire your consistency and you're probably going to get screwed at some point on this deal. That sucks and I don't know what to do about it.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Maybe you can my questions. If they lift immunity, do you have any idea what it would do for the cost of guns? Also, if the costs did skyrocket to the point that most of society couldn’t purchaser guns. Would it be a violation of the 2nd amendment? Is there any precedent?

It would not be a violation of the Second Amendment to lift civil liability or sue a gun manufacturer liable for product liability, in the abstract. How the Supreme Court would handle the particular cases would depend on the claim brought.

So if you have a claim that AR-15 manufacturers market towards deranged, mentally ill people that they know are likely to buy their guns, that would most likely fly (I doubt you could prove that, but with an emotional jury in the right location, it might work). If you sued based on a theory that the AR-15 is inherently dangerous and so should not be sold because of a balance with social utility like CoH posited, then I think you run into the Everclear example problems and the SCt. might not allow that. I have no idea how to handicap suits alleging the safeties aren't complex enough, the magazines are too big, etc.

States like New York, Illinois, and California will sue the gun manufacturers just like Big Tobacco and Oxytocin on nuisance theories as well. The best, most funded, trial lawyers are salivating at this and will make billions. They will then funnel that money to Democratic politicians. Of that, I have no doubt.

 

[snarlcakes]

It would not be a violation of the Second Amendment to lift civil liability or sue a gun manufacturer liable for product liability, in the abstract. How the Supreme Court would handle the particular cases would depend on the claim brought.

So if you have a claim that AR-15 manufacturers market towards deranged, mentally ill people that they know are likely to buy their guns, that would most likely fly (I doubt you could prove that, but with an emotional jury in the right location, it might work). If you sued based on a theory that the AR-15 is inherently dangerous and so should not be sold because of a balance with social utility like CoH posited, then I think you run into the Everclear example problems and the SCt. might not allow that. I have no idea how to handicap suits alleging the safeties aren't complex enough, the magazines are too big, etc.

States like New York, Illinois, and California will sue the gun manufacturers just like Big Tobacco and Oxytocin on nuisance theories as well. The best, most funded, trial lawyers are salivating at this and will make billions. They will then funnel that money to Democratic politicians. Of that, I have no doubt.

Thanks, I appreciate the response.

 

[larsIU]

States like New York, Illinois, and California will sue the gun manufacturers just like Big Tobacco and Oxytocin on nuisance theories as well.

that's all it would take to make major changes.

 

[DANC]

I can go pull videos of how much freedom Australians had during COVID when their government decided they should no longer have it. Australia was one of the most restrictive governments on the planet. They had internment camps for Pete's sake.

Charity News | Charity Today News - The #1 for charity news!

The latest UK and World charity news courtesy of Charity Today News. Find the leading stories, opinion, pictures and video on the latest events.

www.charitytoday.co.uk

Loading…

www.google.com

We weren't put under as strict restrictions because they couldn't. They lied about it. They exerted immense social pressure. They shut down schools. They closed up businesses. They did everything they could to lock people up but they couldn't go as far as Australia. Why?

View embedded media

Because even Gravy SEALS are a threat when they have guns. Particularly high powered ones.

An unarmed populace is only as free as their government decides they can be on that day. Democracy did nothing for the Australians in that internment camp when a 2 vote majority decided to lock them up. As the officer said, "You just have to do what you are told."

My house isn't on fire, guess I don't need insurance. I have never lived in one that burnt to the ground. I have seen others, but not me. I haven't had a car wreck in years, guess I don't need collision insurance. There are doctors around who can take care of me so what is the point of exercise and eating healthy? No one has ever robbed me, why lock the doors? Most people are good.

I am not saying the government is coming to get anyone at the moment and I am not advocating armed rebellion against this government. I am saying that I want an insurance policy should this government decide to, I don't know, arbitrarily lock up people of Japanese descent in concentration camps because of a conflict with their country of origin. That could never happen in a good place like this, we have a trustworthy government.

Firearms are also needed for personal protection when the government does not enforce the law, or at least enforce it equally.

The situation in Australie was scary. It happened here - just not as extreme. There were daily reports here of businesses being closed - by the government - for being open after they were ordered closed.

Covid was a real wake-up call for the potential for totalitarianism for anyone who was paying attention.

 

[snarlcakes]

It would not be a violation of the Second Amendment to lift civil liability or sue a gun manufacturer liable for product liability, in the abstract. How the Supreme Court would handle the particular cases would depend on the claim brought.

So if you have a claim that AR-15 manufacturers market towards deranged, mentally ill people that they know are likely to buy their guns, that would most likely fly (I doubt you could prove that, but with an emotional jury in the right location, it might work). If you sued based on a theory that the AR-15 is inherently dangerous and so should not be sold because of a balance with social utility like CoH posited, then I think you run into the Everclear example problems and the SCt. might not allow that. I have no idea how to handicap suits alleging the safeties aren't complex enough, the magazines are too big, etc.

States like New York, Illinois, and California will sue the gun manufacturers just like Big Tobacco and Oxytocin on nuisance theories as well. The best, most funded, trial lawyers are salivating at this and will make billions. They will then funnel that money to Democratic politicians. Of that, I have no doubt.

So…..I need to stop buying Bitcoin and buy some guns and HODL them? You’re my new financial advisor.

 

[DANC]

I don’t own any guns.

Me neither. But I'm starting to think I might.

 

[larsIU]

Covid was a real wake-up call for the potential for totalitarianism for anyone who was paying attention

What? WWII wasn't a wake up call? Everything is a wake up call if you believe the government has it out for everday joes.

 

[DANC]

There’s also the small matter that the right to fireball isn’t enshrined in the constitution.

Well, that needs to be rectified ASAP.

It's my damn right to chug Fireball at IU FB tailgates.

 

[DANC]

What? WWII wasn't a wake up call? Everything is a wake up call if you believe the government has it out for everday joes.

??? I never said that.

There have been multiple generations since WWII. Covid was less than 2 years ago. We can't depend on people keeping the lessons of WWII forever.

 

[DANC]

I also like just thinking things through, no matter the political outcome.

And that's what we love about you!

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

that's all it would take to make major changes.

And it would make very little difference, if any difference at all.

There would still be guns readily available for any criminal who wanted one. Hell, the cartels would probably start running guns. Prohibition has never worked and it never will.

The only thing you will have accomplished is shutting out those of us who want to own a gun legally.

 

[DANC]

Maybe you can my questions. If they lift immunity, do you have any idea what it would do for the cost of guns? Also, if the costs did skyrocket to the point that most of society couldn’t purchaser guns. Would it be a violation of the 2nd amendment? Is there any precedent?

It would knock poor people out of the firearms market.

So, the rich can still get them.

But the party of the workers won't tell you that.

 

[DANC]

It would not be a violation of the Second Amendment to lift civil liability or sue a gun manufacturer liable for product liability, in the abstract. How the Supreme Court would handle the particular cases would depend on the claim brought.

So if you have a claim that AR-15 manufacturers market towards deranged, mentally ill people that they know are likely to buy their guns, that would most likely fly (I doubt you could prove that, but with an emotional jury in the right location, it might work). If you sued based on a theory that the AR-15 is inherently dangerous and so should not be sold because of a balance with social utility like CoH posited, then I think you run into the Everclear example problems and the SCt. might not allow that. I have no idea how to handicap suits alleging the safeties aren't complex enough, the magazines are too big, etc.

States like New York, Illinois, and California will sue the gun manufacturers just like Big Tobacco and Oxytocin on nuisance theories as well. The best, most funded, trial lawyers are salivating at this and will make billions. They will then funnel that money to Democratic politicians. Of that, I have no doubt.

I still haven't seen any response from CoH or anyone about losers pay in a civil suit in product liability suits.

I know why - I just want to hear them say it.

 

[larsIU]

??? I never said that.

There have been multiple generations since WWII. Covid was less than 2 years ago. We can't depend on people keeping the lessons of WWII forever.

My point was garbled.

WWII was the biggest wake up call in our recent history. The lessons of the Holocaust won't be forgotten and the many that conflated COVID and the Holocaust did so at the peril of any actual discussion.

And I get that the mask up brigade screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeched any chance they could get and it looks like it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference.

But nobody was hauled off to a camp. There's degrees to this. Our response to COVID in the US was hardly totalitarian and I believe saying it was does a disservice to the actually more totalitarian aspects of our federal government.

We still haven't undone most of the Patriot Act at this point.

 

[DANC]

My point was garbled.

WWII was the biggest wake up call in our recent history. The lessons of the Holocaust won't be forgotten and the many that conflated COVID and the Holocaust did so at the peril of any actual discussion.

And I get that the mask up brigade screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeched any chance they could get and it looks like it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference.

But nobody was hauled off to a camp. There's degrees to this. Our response to COVID in the US was hardly totalitarian and I believe saying it was does a disservice to the actually more totalitarian aspects of our federal government.

We still haven't undone most of the Patriot Act at this point.

They were hauled off to camps in Australia. And that was after the population was disarmed.

Your idea of totalitarianism must be different than mine when the government can close a legal business and let others continue to operate.

 

[larsIU]

And it would make very little difference, if any difference at all.

There would still be guns readily available for any criminal who wanted one. Hell, the cartels would probably start running guns. Prohibition has never worked and it never will.

The only thing you will have accomplished is shutting out those of us who want to own a gun legally.

In the next 25 years, sure. We Americans suffer from 5 year-itis. We can't plan anything beyond that and stick to it.

It's a complication of our rebpublic and free elections. The populace can be fickle.

But let's say we turn the trial lawyers loose and let water find its level. What does this look like when your grandkids are your age?

 

[larsIU]

Your idea of totalitarianism must be different than mine when the government can close a legal business and let others continue to operate.

Bad policy isn't totalitarianism.

 

[DANC]

Bad policy isn't totalitarianism.

It can be. The precedent has been set.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

In the next 25 years, sure. We Americans suffer from 5 year-itis. We can't plan anything beyond that and stick to it.

It's a complication of our rebpublic and free elections. The populace can be fickle.

But let's say we turn the trial lawyers loose and let water find its level. What does this look like when your grandkids are your age?

I don’t know. Australia passed the NFA 26 years ago and they have more guns in their country now than they did before it.

And that’s a country with a FRACTION of the gun culture we have here.

All you’re doing is punishing people who did nothing wrong.

 

[bawlmer]

All you’re doing is punishing people who did nothing wrong.

That's an aspect of most public policies. It's the flip side of the current tort immunity for manufacturers.

 

[Cthulhu85]

So your contention is that, noting there is no external threat, the feds will start rounding up gun owners? Or that they'll round up evengelicals? Or "patriots"?

The decision to lock up the Japanese in 1942 was certainly not arbritrary. THEY'D JUST BOMBED PEARL HARBOR.
Come on. You don't have to agree with it (I don't) but it wasn't arbitrary.


Legalize everything then. Tomorrow. No reason you can't own a tank if you can afford it and somebody will sell it to you.


I admire your consistency and you're probably going to get screwed at some point on this deal. That sucks and I don't know what to do about it.

Not sure how anyone expects to pay for and round up 20 million rifles. There would be sheriff's and local pds refusing to apply the law. There would be court challenges. You would be amazed how little most police care about gun laws. It's mostly an add on charge.

The government can't just take people's property without paying fair market value. Just because government passes a law doesn't make it right.

If they could successfully repeal the 2nd through the proper process then I couldn't argue with that. Short of that I'm not voluntarily giving them anything.

 

[larsIU]

Not sure how anyone expects to pay for and round up 20 million rifles. There would be sheriff's and local pds refusing to apply the law. There would be court challenges. You would be amazed how little most police care about gun laws. It's mostly an add on charge.

The government can't just take people's property without paying fair market value. Just because government passes a law doesn't make it right.

If they could successfully repeal the 2nd through the proper process then I couldn't argue with that. Short of that I'm not voluntarily giving them anything.

I don't think there will be any round up. Buybacks? Sure.

I'm interested in what it looks like 25-50 years from now.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I still haven't seen any response from CoH or anyone about losers pay in a civil suit in product liability suits.

I know why - I just want to hear them say it.

That already exists in some states in varying degrees. Offer of judgment etc

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

That's an aspect of most public policies. It's the flip side of the current tort immunity for manufacturers.

Wait, how is tort immunity for manufacturers punishing anyone?

Except maybe lawyers who want to make bank.

 

[IUCrazy2]

So your contention is that, noting there is no external threat, the feds will start rounding up gun owners? Or that they'll round up evengelicals? Or "patriots"?

No. Nobody can definitively say that X, Y, or Z IS going to happen. I am saying that whenever you set up a group of people to "rule" you, there exists the chance for abuse. If there is any chance whatsoever that your government could decide that there are "reasons" to do the things you mentioned, then the last line of defense you have against those potential or would be totalitarians is personal arms.

The decision to lock up the Japanese in 1942 was certainly not arbritrary. THEY'D JUST BOMBED PEARL HARBOR.
Come on. You don't have to agree with it (I don't) but it wasn't arbitrary.

It was arbitrary. They didn't lock up people of German ancestry. It was decided (for probably mostly racial reasons) that Japanese Americans could be othered and they were.

The President got in front of a red background, framed by two military members, and labeled his opponents "extremists". His DOJ was investigating parents speaking up at school board meetings as domestic terrorists. Are they going to step over the line? I doubt it. But to suggest that nobody will ever overstep the line in this country is just false. We enslaved people, After freeing them we relegated them to second class status, we put people in concentration camps...we have done the bad things already.

Hopefully we have moved past that but I don't believe there is anything special about Americans. We are as capable of any of the bad things that happen around the world as anyone else. We have institutions and traditions in place that generally are/were a bulwark against some of that bad behavior but I am looking around and seeing corruption hitting those institutions along with diminishing their role and importance. I am not going to run through the links but we are spied on, there has been talk from one political party of stuffing the judicial system to achieve their ends when "justice" isn't social enough for them. Our media are propaganda arms of their respective party line and paymasters. That is to name a few things.

The guns are the insurance if we can't get back on the right path and things go off the rails.

Legalize everything then. Tomorrow. No reason you can't own a tank if you can afford it and somebody will sell it to you.

You can own a tank. Here is a German Leopard for sale.

Own A Tank

Didn’t think that you could own a Tank? Well Think again! We can Assist you in all aspects of the purchase, even the transportation to your site if needed.

www.drivetanks.com

 

[larsIU]

You can own a tank. Here is a German Leopard for sale.

 

[bawlmer]

Wait, how is tort immunity for manufacturers punishing anyone?

Except maybe lawyers who want to make bank.

Really? I'm talking about victims' families who are prevented from seeking legal review of industry actions that may have contributed to fatal shootings.

• Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, whose daughter was fatally shot in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting, filed a lawsuit against online retailer Lucky Gunner for selling thousands of rounds of ammunition and a 100-round ammunition magazine to the shooter. The lawsuit alleged that Lucky Gunner’s internet business practices failed to provide reasonable safeguards to prevent dangerous people from acquiring weapons. The case was dismissed under the PLCAA, and the Phillips were ordered to pay the ammunition retailer more than $200,000 in legal fees.7
• In 2001, 11-year-old Billy Swan accidentally shot and killed his friend, Josh Adames, while playing with his father’s gun. In 2009, Josh’s father sued the firearm manufacturer Beretta for both failing to include a common and inexpensive device on the firearm that would have prevented the gun from firing without a magazine and failing to include a warning label indicating the gun could be used without a magazine. The case was dismissed under the PLCAA.8
• In 2003, the family of officer Matthew Pavelka sued a gun dealer and manufacturer after Pavelka was fatally shot in the line of duty, arguing that the defendants failed to take adequate steps to prevent illegal gun purchases. The case was dismissed under the PLCAA.9
• In 2016, the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting sued Remington Arms, alleging that the firearm manufacturing company promoted and marketed the Bushmaster XM-15—the gun used by the shooter—in an “unethical, oppressive, immoral and unscrupulous manner” that was in violation of Connecticut state law. The case was originally dismissed by a trial court judge under the PLCAA; however, in 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed this ruling, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed in their suit against Remington. The case is still ongoing.10
• In 2007, David W. Logsdon purchased firearm ammunition and magazines from a local gun store using a credit card he stole from his neighbor, who was later found dead in her home. A few days later, he used the ammunition and magazines he purchased to go on a shooting spree, killing two and injuring several others in a Kansas City, Missouri, shopping center. The families of the deceased filed a lawsuit against the gun shop, alleging that it was negligent in its sale of firearm ammunition and magazines and that it should have been alerted that Logsdon presented a serious risk after he used a stolen credit card. The case was dismissed under the PLCAA.11
• On March 20, 2016, 13-year-old J.R. Gustafson was accidentally shot and killed by another child, who believed the gun was unloaded when the magazine was detached. The gun, which was manufactured by Springfield Armory and sold by a local gun store, was missing several common safety measures, including a magazine disconnect feature. Brady: United Against Gun Violence sued the gun manufacturer and the dealer for product liability for failing to include these features. In 2019, a trial judge dismissed the suit under the PLCAA. Brady has since appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.12

Here are some examples of gun industry accountability prior to the PLCCA immunity protection:

• In 2000, several lawsuits against Smith & Wesson resulted in a settlement agreement in which the company agreed to adopt a number of safety practices, such as selling safety devices with each handgun; establishing a code of conduct for authorized dealers and distributors; and including a hidden set of serial numbers on the inside of all new guns to make it harder for criminals to scratch off identifying markings.17
• In 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo murdered 17 people and injured seven in the span of nine months, killing 10 individuals during the infamous Beltway sniper shootings. The guns used in the shootings were traced back to a gun retailer known as Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, which had failed to keep required records of gun sales and had lost more than 238 guns in the previous three years. In response, the families of the victims sued the snipers, Bull’s Eye, and the gun manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, alleging that the store was responsible for the shootings because of its negligence and that Bushmaster was responsible because it continued supplying the gun store with its firearms, despite having knowledge of negligent sales practices. As a result of the settlement, Bushmaster agreed to change its distribution practices to ensure product safety.18

 

[Cthulhu85]

One additional thing that annoys me. Politicians who seem to care so much about gun control should at the very least take the time to learn the terminology and not encourage people to do illegal acts like step outside and fire 2 blasts.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Wait, how is tort immunity for manufacturers punishing anyone?

Except maybe lawyers who want to make bank.

Consumers who are victims of whatever. Think of how most dram shops work. Guy gets bombed at the bar. Clearly bombed but bartender keeps serving him. Then he gets in his car and runs me over. I should be able to sue the bar for negligently serving him too much.

 

[mattndallas]

One additional thing that annoys me. Politicians who seem to care so much about gun control should at the very least take the time to learn the terminology and not encourage people to do illegal acts like step outside and fire 2 blasts.

View embedded media

LOL at "Pat" the host. Whoa.

I get his gist here. I got one of those bullpup KS-7's (and mini-shells) for the house because it's small, lightweight, maneuverable, and you can still rack it as a warning.

But yeah...advocating to blast from the porch hollering "Identify" like Shooter? Hilarious.

#keltec #ks7 fully loaded shotgun with 12 mini shells. #rangeday #shorts

www.youtube.com

 

[DANC]

Consumers who are victims of whatever. Think of how most dram shops work. Guy gets bombed at the bar. Clearly bombed but bartender keeps serving him. Then he gets in his car and runs me over. I should be able to sue the bar for negligently serving him too much.

Isn't that done all the time? No one is talking about the sellers of products. We're talking about manufacturers. Right?

 

[bawlmer]

Isn't that done all the time? No one is talking about the sellers of products. We're talking about manufacturers. Right?

According to this, PLCCA also covers dealers, sellers, and trade associations, for both firearms and ammunition.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: An Overview of Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA, P.L. 109-92) was passed in 2005. The PLCAA generally shields licensed...

www.everycrsreport.com