The Pending Anti-Gun State Supreme Court Case You Haven’t Heard About

Brady Campaign Seeks to Overturn Ruling Protecting Gun Manufacturer from  Liability.

-Spoiler Alert…Not going to happen.

We were all saddened and shocked by the loss of life in Sandy Hook CT. in 2012. A.L. (as I refuse to name assholes who commit horrible crimes), Murdered his Mother, the Legal Purchaser of an AR-15 type firearm. He then took her keys and accessed the LOCKED cabinet and removed firearms and then drove to the elementary school where he MURDERED 6 adults and 20 children. His mental health was barely a blip on the MSM radar.

Soon after, scumbag ambulance chasers (a.k.a. Attorneys) tripped all over themselves like greyhounds chasing a mechanical rabbit, in the hopes of the victims’ families would hire them to take legal action against anyone and everyone connected to this Criminal Tragedy.

A Connecticut judge, in October 2016, threw out a lawsuit brought against Remington Arms Company, 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 Connecticut Supreme Court heard the case on appeal this past November after Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara N. Belli explained in a 54-page memorandum (original 2016 case) that Remington is protected under the provisions of the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which prohibits lawsuits being filed against firearms manufacturers and sellers for actions taken by third parties.

What is the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and why it’s important? First, though, let talk about what it isn’t. It is NOT a “Special Legal Protection” for manufacturers, distributors and lawful licensed sellers of guns. It offers no protection from Unlawful acts or practices related to firearms.

On the contrary, it only codifies and ensures that the firearms industry is treated like any other industry when it comes to lawful commerce.

“The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the “Gun Protection Act.” The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: “To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.”

When some stupid “parent” gives their kid a car with a top speed of 200mph, and the kid drives recklessly or drunk and injures or kills someone, who do we blame? Why the driver, of course. How many protests or lawsuits have you seen against automobile manufactures for fast cars, high-capacity vehicles (Vans or buses) or demands for on-board breathalyzers that force you to “blow” before starting the vehicle? Sounds crazy, right? We go after the Person, the “actor” who engaged in the reckless conduct. We don’t blame the inanimate object, the tool used. Why are guns any different? Like a car, knife, hammer, baseball bat…etc., A firearm has specific use under a specific set of circumstances.

The PLCAA ensures that the firearms industry can operate with the SAME protections as the company that makes cars or can openers.

“Lawyers for the Sandy Hook families argued that Remington should be brought to court under the Act’s “Negligent Entrustment Exemption.” Remington “knows that civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s” but continues to sell them to the civilian market. In other words, Remington knows that at some point someone will commit a crime with one of their firearms, and they should, therefore, be subject to legal action. This exemption stipulates that when a manufacturer or seller has reason to suspect a purchaser might commit a crime with a firearm, the manufacturer or seller has a responsibility to prohibit that purchase from taking place. Not surprisingly, the judge was unconvinced. She gave a number of reasons for her decision, but one revolved around the idea that “civilians” is too broad a social class to support a claim for negligent entrustment. Remington can’t be held liable for anything anyone in the world might do with their firearms.”

Not to be deterred (of course), the above-mentioned ambulance chasing scumbags appealed, their case to the state Supreme Court. In addition to their original argument to Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara N. Belli, they are now including a 1977 case involving a “Slingshot” injury. Yes, you read that right.

“The case in Michigan was a 1977 lawsuit by the family of a 12-year-old against a company that manufactured slingshots. The boy was injured when he was struck in the eye by a pellet fired from a slingshot that ricocheted off a tree. The court allowed the case to go before a jury, ruling that the company entrusted the slingshot to a class of people, in this case, younger children, that made the ultimate accident foreseeable.”

Are you laughing? I did. The case clearly does not exhibit persuasive let alone a binding influence in this case. Does the PLCAA give blanket immunity to the manufactures, distributors or gun sellers? The answer is, No. If any of these entities violate Federal, State or Local laws, the PLCAA protections will not apply. This leaves open the possibility of not only criminal but, civil liability as well. However, for that to happen, one would have to prove that the manufacturer supplied a firearm to an individual, Having Knowledge that the individual was a person who, intended to commit a criminal act, or, that the Distributor (who supplies firearms to LICENSED dealers) is Unlawfully providing firearms to prohibited “persons” or dealers. For dealers, like me, for there to be a successful prosecution or civil lawsuit, I have to knowingly sell a firearm to a person, who intended to use the firearm in an unlawful manner.

Neither the seller nor a firearms manufacturer or a distributor is responsible for the criminal acts of a lunatic. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was needed to stop “politically motivated” and “frivolous” lawsuits “intended to bankrupt the gun industry.”

About JAMES A SINGER Owner of That Gun Guy Gun Shop

Retired U.S. Army and former Federal and State Law Enforcement Officer. A self-described Constitutionalist. I have a B.S. in Criminal Justice as well as coursework in political science / Constitutional law.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Pending Anti-Gun State Supreme Court Case You Haven’t Heard About

  1. All other manufacturers are liable for serious safety issues with their products why not gun makers?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s