Connecticut Judge Grants Immunity to Bushmaster in Case Seeking to Gut the PLCAA

[RoadKingLarry]

In even the darkest times, once in a while there is a ray of sunshine.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161014/connecticut-judge-grants-immunity-to-bushmaster-in-case-seeking-to-gut-the-plcaa

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I was shocked too. In a good way


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RevDisk]

I honestly feel for the victims. They went through a horrible experience. Then a lawyer took them for a ride. PLCAA is very specific and not likely to be easily overturned. They just put a significant amount of money in their lawyer's pocket for a case with near zero chance of winning.

There was another case not long ago were parents also tried cashing in by suing a firearm manufacturer. They not only lost, but had for pay for their lawyer cost as well as the firearm manufacturer's lawyer costs. The Phillips were represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in DC and Arnold & Porter in Denver. Unshocking that the Brady Center would give bad legal advice to a grieving family. Sportsman’s Guide asked for > $70,000. Lucky Gunner petitioned for >$150,000 to be awarded jointly against the Phillips and their lawyers. BTP Arms asked for $24,000 for attorney fees and $33,000 in relief.

The lawyers want to crack the PLCAA because it could be a huge amount of cash in their pocket if they could sue manufacturers for the end use of their product. Just like if you could sue Ford for every drunk driver's action.

[Ben]

The lawyers want to crack the PLCAA because it could be a huge amount of cash in their pocket if they could sue manufacturers for the end use of their product. Just like if you could sue Ford for every drunk driver's action.

This.

Of course Clinton has commented. Does anyone know if there is anything significant a President could do on their own to adversely affect lawful commerce? Specifically to adversely affect one type of commerce without adversely affecting others (to use the cars / drunk drivers example, which would have worldwide car manufacturers in an uproar).

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/10/15/hillary-clinton-sets-sights-on-gun-manufacturers-after-judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit/

[RevDisk]

This.

Of course Clinton has commented. Does anyone know if there is anything significant a President could do on their own to adversely affect lawful commerce? Specifically to adversely affect one type of commerce without adversely affecting others (to use the cars / drunk drivers example, which would have worldwide car manufacturers in an uproar).

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/10/15/hillary-clinton-sets-sights-on-gun-manufacturers-after-judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit/

President does not have the ability to override PLCAA. They can just try to be annoying by more strictly implementing existing laws and regulations.

[zxcvbob]

President does not have the ability to override PLCAA. They can just try to be annoying by more strictly implementing existing laws and regulations.

Not directly.  They can appoint judges who will rule contrary to the plain language of the law.

[RevDisk]

Not directly.  They can appoint judges who will rule contrary to the plain language of the law.

True, and that's common as dirt for both parties to do.

[TommyGunn]

Not directly.  They can appoint judges who will rule contrary to the plain language of the law.

They CAN --- by passing executive orders.  Or so one might come to believe after eight years of OBAMA.

[Ben]

They CAN --- by passing executive orders.  Or so one might come to believe after eight years of OBAMA.

I think any EOs in this type of case would be pretty weak, and would be just PR versus effectual (for the bad guys).

[TommyGunn]

I think any EOs in this type of case would be pretty weak, and would be just PR versus effectual (for the bad guys).

There is a slight chance that the supreme court would knock it down should a case actually get there .... uh, unless Hillary gets to appoint  a new judge or two.
The republic, as we knew it, will be over January 20th, 2017.  I know some believe it ended years ago ....I won't contest it, because even THAT argument will be meaningless on the aforementioned date.

[Ben]

There is a slight chance that the supreme court would knock it down should a case actually get there .... uh, unless Hillary gets to appoint  a new judge or two.
The republic, as we knew it, will be over January 20th, 2017.  I know some believe it ended years ago ....I won't contest it, because even THAT argument will be meaningless on the aforementioned date.

Going Galt and/or Redoubt certainly is getting closer to being a mainstream, vs fringe, solution.