I'm not a lawyer and obviously not an expert on the law regarding firearms, but I have to think, if a gun store knowingly sold a gun to a felon or anyone not allowed to have a gun, they'd still be liable.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
Biden gets one right.
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
Well no one can say that we all were not warned that he was an idiot MANY MANY years ago. Bu there we are.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.
Was he the one who said the cops should just shoot for the legs or was that one of the geniuses on this board?
Nothing in this thread was about was debating merits of individual cases.
The argument is regarding blanket immunity where people can't even bring a case.
Not a single person here has defended the actual topic at all, it's all ventured off into discussions about hypothetical cases. The exact thing the legal system is built to handle.
An NICS background check is required at the point of sale. There is a form 4473 that a buyer has to fill out that asks if they are a felon and lying on the form is a felony. It is never prosecuted though.
If a felon gets a gun at a gun store it is going to be a p2p transaction and if someone else made the purchase from the store that is considered a straw purchase. So in effect the store likely doesn't know unless the owner or clerk is selling out of the back of the store and that's their livelihood so likely not happening.
I will answer. Guns are a weird product, the ownership of which is protected by the constitution. There is an inherent bias against guns that is particularly pronounced based on political affiliation in this country. I am not interested in letting a bunch of ambulance chasers have the ability to jury shop in the most liberal parts of the country to basically determine something constitutionally protected to buy. It is just a backdoor attempt to violate rights much like the government's participation in "helping" companies like Twitter violated the first.
If guns disappear tomorrow, What about the criminally insane people that used them to kill people? Those people will be walking free and still committing murder.
Without the human factor, neither one will kill on there own.
Semi autos existed in the time of the revolution. The Belton Flintlock was invented in Philadelphia in 1777. The Puckle gun was patented in 1718.
The goal of people who want to open up gun manufacturers to lawsuits is to ultimately drive them out of business. They want to litigate them to death.
But that I could double thank this post.
A more clear and succinct way of what I’ve been saying.
The only possible bias I see is against those who worship guns like a diety. Nobody has any bias agasinst people how use a gun as a tool.
Pejorative. Many of the safeguards we have in place today were certainly not placed there by the manufacturers (on their own) nor by the government. They were won by trial lawyers changing the landscape for corporations. It's not always bad. It's not always good. But juries get to decide. What's more American than that?
The cognitive dissonance here is either purposeful or astounding. I can't tell.
Yep. And that's exactly what CO. Hoosier is banking on with his "it's for the juries to decide" statement. It's nothing but an attempted end around to get the guns. It's disingenuous and ugly, imo. But the gun grabbers don't care, as long as they get the guns.
Right. That’s the whole point.
Who worships guns like a diety? What does that even mean? A lot of people say my support for the 2nd amendment amounts to worshiping guns.
We have close to 20,000 gun laws on the books already. This isn’t about safety. This is about some nebulous concept of what constitutes unsafe advertising. COH said it himself.
How so? You don’t think that happens? It absolutely happens.
I absolutely think the threat of civil liability will affect the number and kinds of guns. So what? The second amendment doesn’t trump the seventh amendment. The second amendment doesnt guarantee you can have a gun. It just guarantees you that the government can’t take them.
Anybody who puts guns in all their family's hands (including small children) and sends it out as a Christmas card. That group. They bring nothing to the conversation. I don't think you're that at all.
Both things can be true at the same time. It can be about safety and the understanding of the nebulous concept between marketing guns to people for anything other than their intended use. Looking cool as a gravy seal isn't an intended use.
Gun manufacturers are putting an EXTREMELY dangerous product into the stream of commerce. One which is protected by our very Constitution. I repsect that. But thta doesn't mean it's carte blanche for the gun manufacturers. Will there be frivolous bullshit lawsuits. You betcha. Will there me meaningful and lasting change resulting from the more concrete cases. Yes, there will be.
Will that involved rounding up all the guns. No. Handguns, no. Shotguns, no. Rifles that look like something your grandfather would take hunting, no.
This? Probably.
Not true. Just the term "assault rifle" is a biasing misnomer that is used all of the time. I don't worship guns and I don't own an AR but there is absolutely a bias against wanting to let people use that type of gun as a tool. "Gravy SEALs", "Ammo Sexuals", and similar pejorative terms get thrown around by the people who think they are being reasonable when they take away a right they don't understand or believe in. Our country was literally founded by "Gravy SEALS" taking up arms against the British.
If I believed it was safeguards being sought we would get somewhere. It isn't. The goal is bankruptcy of the manufacturers and making sure that guns are nearly impossible to own by either shutting down their manufacture or making them cost prohibitive.
What you are seeing/hearing is a break down in the trust I have in my fellow countrymen. We are two America's. Where you have that trial is very likely to determine its outcome but the outcome impacts us all. I don't have faith in our current institutions and I sure as shit don't trust a jury of IUHickory's (which is what we would likely get based on venue shopping) to make the right choice for me.
It is the difference in having faith in the was as opposed to the faith in the is.
If the conservatives did it with abortion why is it wrong for the liberals to do it with guns?
Using the courts to legislate is only done b/c Congress won't do it. Both sides have figured this one out.
I don't believe in leaving constitutional rights that are very specifically laid out up to 12 yahoos pulled off the street from an area hostile to that right. If you can point to where it says in the constitution that a women's right to an abortion shall not be infringed, we can talk.
There is a presrcibed method to get the constitution changed that is extremely difficult. There is a reason for that. Back door bullshit like this ain't it for a reason.
Yeah and again it is because there are two countries here that don't agree. You couldn't get the type of ban through the prescribed processes. So we play games.
The abortion issue is not a correlation to this either. It was a right created by the court and it was a right restricted by the court. Constitutional amendments have a higher bar for change for a reason.
Was abortoin protected by an interpretation of the Constituion? Yes. Not the same as a constituional right but still. did conservatives do everything they could to whip up cases in areas "hostile to that right". Of course they did. Also, gun manufacturers choosing to not make a certain product isn't infringing upon the 2a.
We're one country Crazy. We have to learn to work it out. Like we used to. Outside of the civil war thingy.
I mean, I was rabbit and squirrel hunting by the time I was a teenager. I was shooting rats with a 22 rifle on my uncles hog farm before that. My kids all had the option to shoot by the time they were 13.
Always with the proper safety instructions of course. My mom was INSANE about gun safety and I’m like her.
I guess I’m a gun nut according to your definition.
You think I care about a gun like that? No.Both things can be true at the same time. It can be about safety and the understanding of the nebulous concept between marketing guns to people for anything other than their intended use. Looking cool as a gravy seal isn't an intended use.
Gun manufacturers are putting an EXTREMELY dangerous product into the stream of commerce. One which is protected by our very Constitution. I repsect that. But thta doesn't mean it's carte blanche for the gun manufacturers. Will there be frivolous bullshit lawsuits. You betcha. Will there me meaningful and lasting change resulting from the more concrete cases. Yes, there will be.
Will that involved rounding up all the guns. No. Handguns, no. Shotguns, no. Rifles that look like something your grandfather would take hunting, no.
This? Probably.
But that gun is really no more dangerous than a shotgun or a 9 mm.
And again, they’re not just coming for that gun. They’re coming for them ALL.
I get the feeling you don’t really care because you have no skin in the game.
Do you own a gun?
My uncle was a gunsmith - factory worker by day, but had his own machine shop at his home, where he made everything except the barrell for muzzle-loaders. He was winning muzzle-loading contests around Indiana into his late 70s. When he was in his buckskins, people thought he was an Indian.
He made a flintlock for me, but the hardware isn't standard because he made it all. My cousin has his own tools and he's the only one who can work on it.
Anyway..... he experimented with a revolving barrell muzzle-loader. I don't know if he got the idea from someone or it was his own, but he had a working model when he passed away.
He was quite a guy. When we had our garage sale, I had guys ask me if I had any guns for sale when they found out my last name.
Are there any examples of industries that have gone out of business due to civil liabilities? Sounds like just another NRA boogeyman.
Sounds like a cool uncle. I'm planning on getting a flintlock rifle kit to build sometime. Nothing that intensive though.
Back then they were limited by technology, not their imaginations.
I don't know, I'm sure there are some throughout time.
You do realize people are capable of drawing their own conclusions? I'm not an NRA member. I don't know what they say about things.
I think something a lot of people misunderstand, not saying you don't, is that what isn't enumerated in the bill of rights is left to the states. So the original 10 and subsequent additions encompass federal and state laws.
Abortion for example can be a right if a state wants it to be. The details of what is and isn't allowed is up to each state. There is no constitutional protection for it at the federal level because it's not a federal responsibility to decide.
People's mentality needs to focus on
decentralization.
Nope. Unless you send Christmas cards with your kids carrying pink .22's
I do care. I'm posting here aren't I and responding without being too much of an asshole. I don't take constitional rights lightly. But they can be, for lack of a better word, regulated by civil action. Or the actions of a corporation in response to teh civil action.
Again, a gun company ceasing to sell a certain type of gun (whetehr or not it technically differs that much from a normal rifle or handgun) isn't an infringment of the 2A. It's a response to the environment they are in.
I, under no circumstances, think ALL guns should be made scarce. But this one, for whatever reason, is a lightning rod and is CLEARLY the weapon of choice for mass shooters. do I think this will substantially decrease the number of mass shootings.
YES. It will. Over time. A LOT OF TIME. Like 25 years.
Good for you. I'm not either, because of fear-mongering documents like this:
NRA-ILA | Washington: House Appropriations Hearing Bill to Bankrupt Firearm Industry
Tomorrow, at 1:30PM, the House Appropriations Committee will hold a public hearing for Senate Bill 5078, to allow anti-gun zealots to bankrupt the firearm industry with frivolous lawsuits. Last week, the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee amended SB 5078 to add back in a private right of...
I understand which is why I've noted a sensitivity on this subject that differs a bit from teh abortion argument.
It WAS constitutionally protected, though not an enumerated right, for 50 years. It may be an enumerated right in the next 50 as well.
Some really interesting work being done with 3D printing that could hopefully put this liability stuff to bed. Unless you want to make the 3D printing manufacturers liable as well. That would be a stretch.
Back door making it impossible to make the product is infringing. Manufacturers want to make them. They have 5 to 10 million of them they have sold already. The minute people think they are about to be banned, that number will increase again.
Yeah, I don't want to shoot either. The way we come to an agreement is Congress.
ETA: when people pushing this state that their goal is to infringe on personal ownership through other means, it kind of negates the other what ifs around this.
(I also appreciate that we have been able to disagree agreeably.)
Last edited:
they won't want to make them if they get sued to hell and back and lose. I mean the gun manufacturers could WIN the case you know.
Removing immunity just allows them to be sued.
Not really, if we let them get started, there will be no end. It's best to just stop this right now!
Similar threads
