Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act]]>

Will Bruen impact gun industry liability efforts?

by Leave a Comment

The gun industry has perpetually been in a precarious spot. There are anti-Second Amendment types who desperately want to sue them into oblivion, making them responsible for every misuse of every firearm they ever make.

It’s the reason Congress stepped in and passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

From the moment it passed, though, some have sought to overturn it.

Here lately, there’s been an attempted end-around the law by attacking the marketing of these firearms. Over at Slate, though, they’re concerned that such efforts may come under attack after Bruen.

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions indicating radical new directions for American law. This may be obvious when it comes to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which extinguished women’s constitutional rights to choose abortion. After all, in his concurrence Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the reconsideration of all of the Supreme Court’s substantive due process precedents. The other case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, is a gun control case in which Thomas wrote for the majority, striking down a state law constraining who could carry guns in public.

The majority opinion does not suggest comprehensive reconsideration of existing Supreme Court case law though it clearly paves the way for judicial decisions invalidating all sorts of statutes regulating access to firearms. Bruen is the harbinger of an even more drastic shift. It signals the current Supreme Court’s receptivity to the idea that the Constitution directly eliminates avenues of civil accountability for gun makers and sellers, even when a maker’s or seller’s conduct plays a close causal role in excessive gun violence. Currently, state and federal statutes are the legal mechanism for insulating gun makers and sellers from civil damage actions. If gun industry actors succeed in convincing the Supreme Court that the Constitution itself gives them immunity from civil liability under state law, these statutes will become superfluous. Even if the statutes were repealed, gun industry immunity from civil lawsuits would survive.

As it should.

You see, the gun industry isn’t immune to lawsuits. They just can’t be sued over stupid crap that can’t possibly be their fault.

If a gun blows up during normal use, you can file a lawsuit and they’ll have to defend themselves or settle. If you file a lawsuit because someone in your family was killed with a gun made by that manufacturer, then you’re slap out of luck.

The gun industry shouldn’t need that kind of protection. It shouldn’t be necessary to have a law in place to protect an industry from liability for the actions of a third party. However, it is because this kind of thing kept happening.

Now the anti-Second Amendment types feel like they’ve found a way around it. These new laws don’t even require the bad guy as having seen the marketing, they just use it as an excuse to try and make it unprofitable to sell guns to civilians.

Which is really the end goal.

See, you don’t need to worry about the Second Amendment if there aren’t guns on the market for people to buy. You don’t need gun control if the lack of options controls things just fine. That is, in my opinion, the ultimate goal for these kinds of lawsuits.

So yeah, I sincerely hope Bruen ultimately leads to all such laws being smacked down and smacked down hard. The gun industry isn’t liable because some mentally unstable jackwagon decided to shoot up the neighborhood. That’s not on them and never will be.

Glock sued by New York subway shooting victim

by Leave a Comment

A New York law signed by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2021 that allows for gun makers, distributors, and retailers to be sued under the state’s public nuisance law when a firearm is used in a crime was upheld last week by a federal judge, and while the challenge from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and several firearms manufacturers is being appealed, as of now the law remains in effect and is being put to use by the attorneys for one of the victims of the recent shooting on a New York City subway.

The new lawsuit, filed on behalf of 49-year old Ilene Steur, claims that Glock’s marketing and business practices have “endangered the public health and safety” by marketing and selling their firearms “”with reckless disregard for human life and for the peace, tranquility and economic well-being of the public.”

The suit alleges that Glock’s business plan and marketing materials “appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent,” though it oddly starts off with a quote from the gun company’s founder Gaston Glock talking about marketing to law enforcement and not law-breakers; “It was a conscious decision to go after the law enforcement market first. In marketing terms, we assumed that by pursuing the law enforcement market, we would receive the benefit of ‘after sales’ in the commercial market.”

The lawsuit goes on to claim that those commercial sales should never have taken place, and that by selling to civilians Glock “chose to disregard the unreasonable risks of the Glock firearm in its marketing strategies.”

Upon information and belief, Defendants, as makers and sellers of the subject Glock firearm, have, like all Americans, become aware that mass shootings become a frightening yet predictable part of modern life.

Upon information and belief, Defendants know that, as a consequence selling Glock firearms to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them.

Upon information and belief, the defendants are aware that their Glock design which promotes concealment and firearm’s firepower, unsuited to personal defense or recreation, enables an individual in possession of the weapon to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage.

Upon information and belief, despite that knowledge, defendants continued and continues to market and distribute the Glock firearm to the civilian market.

Upon information and belief, in order to continue profiting from the sale of Glock firearms, including the subject Glock firearm, defendants chose to disregard the unreasonable risks of the Glock firearm in its marketing strategies.

That’s right. Glock shouldn’t be able to talk about concealed carry, even though 42 states are “shall issue”, 25 states don’t require a permit for legal gun owners to carry, and even in the eight “may issue” states there’s at least a theoretical possibility of someone being able to lawfully carry a concealed firearm. They can’t talk about the stopping power of their gun, even though the primary reason why people purchase handguns is for self-defense. In fact, the lawsuit claims that Glocks are “unsuited to personal defense,” which would come as a surprise to the Glock owners I know.

It’s not hard to see why the firearms industry called the New York law an existential threat when it was first introduced in the state legislature last year. As written, gun makers are held responsible for the third party actions of criminals even if a particular firearm used in a crime was stolen or lawfully sold to someone (as was the case in the subway shooting, where the suspect legally purchased a Glock handgun from a pawn shop in 2011).

Note as well that this law is specifically targeted at the firearms industry. In New York State, more than 4,000 residents lose their lives to excessive alcohol use every year, but there’s no law in place holding brewers and distillers responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. Instead, anti-gun politicians have crafted a statute that’s intentionally designed to target gun companies and put them out of business by blaming them for the actions of violent felons. The consequences of this law could reach far beyond New York’s borders, and if not overturned by the courts would indeed pose an existential threat to both the firearms industry and those Americans who want to be able to lawfully purchase a gun in the future.

Sneaky House bill would leave online gun companies vulnerable to lawsuits

by Leave a Comment

Big tech has been enjoying protections under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and to be perfectly honest, they’ve been abusing those protections. The First Amendment online, is so closely tied to the Second Amendment, in that most Second Amendment related expressions or communications are constantly vulnerable to censor from any internet service provider, social media company, etc. Hiding behind 230, leaving themselves free from tort, these companies get away with playing arbitrator of truth, while targeting industries and opinions they find disagreeable. Members of Congress want to add insult to injury. A bill introduced a couple of weeks ago seeks to remove those protections for any internet company/provider etc. doing “gun stuff”. H.R.7819 – Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act of 2022 would remove online firearm retailers, so-called “marketplaces”, from section 230 protections.

Congressman Jason Crow from Colorado most courageously introduced the bill with some of his equally courageous cohorts:

Rep. Jason Crow (CO-06), a Vice Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, was today joined by Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), Rep. Katie Porter (CA-45), and Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11) in introducing a new gun violence prevention measure in the wake of eight mass shootings across the US in just 72 hours. The Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act is a commonsense measure that cracks down on unlicensed gun sales on online marketplaces, ensuring these marketplaces no longer enjoy blanket immunity and can be brought to justice for violations of the law.

The introduction of this legislation comes on the heels of a horrific weekend of eight shootings across the United States that left at least 65 people shot, 17 fatally, in the span of just 72 hours.The deadliest mass shooting of the year thus far occured this weekend in a racially-motivated attack in Buffalo. One of the attacks also occurred at a church in Laguna Woods, CA (in Congresswoman Porter’s district).

Okay, well, we don’t want firearms to get in the hands of dangerous criminals, do we? Of course not. Let’s look at the bill and what’s inside it that Crow so artfully crafted for our own protection. The following provision highlights who would no longer be granted the same protections as everyone else on the internet:

(3) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER DOES NOT APPLY TO ONLINE FIREARMS MARKETPLACE.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an online firearms marketplace, for purposes of any claim in an action brought against the online firearms marketplace in its capacity as an online firearms marketplace.”; and

(2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:

“(5) ONLINE FIREARMS MARKETPLACE.—The term ‘online firearms marketplace’ means an interactive computer service that—

“(A) facilitates transactions related to firearms, firearms accessories, firearms equipment, and other firearms-related materials;

“(B) advertises or makes available any posting or listing of any statement by a transferor or by a transferee that could be reasonably inferred to propose the transfer of a firearm; or

“(C) makes digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver,

regardless of whether such transactions or other activities violate the terms of service of the interactive computer service.

Let’s review one line there as it tells us most of what we need to know, with the rest being bonus infringements; “facilitates transactions related to firearms, firearms accessories, firearms equipment, and other firearms-related materials.”

What would meet that threshold? Every company that sells pistol rugs? Ammunition? Guns? You name it and these companies would be left vulnerable to being sued, no longer having the section 230 protections. What if someone designs a cool target that they want to share online? Would they be held liable for whatever concocted reason a funded lawsuit from the anti-freedom caucus dreams up? The possibilities and ramifications are endless. That has nothing to do with these “marketplaces”, does it?

Crow was sure to include from removal of protections anyone hosting Computer Aided Design files etc. that could be used to 3D print a firearm. That also has nothing to do with what these jackals say they’re seeking to do.

What did Crow drool out of his mouth about this champion of public safety he’s introduced?

“As a combat veteran, I have a healthy respect for firearms. But military-grade weapons have no place in our communities and on our streets. If we don’t close loopholes in our gun safety laws and let unlicensed sales of weapons like assault rifles go unchecked, these horrific attacks will keep happening,” said Rep. Crow. “As a Vice Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing another key pillar in a slate of commonsense reforms to protect our families and put a stop to the gun violence epidemic.”

This legislation hides behind the possibility of someone buying a firearm privately, and them potentially being a prohibited person. In reality, the bill clearly does much more than advertised in their misleading garbage of a press release.

Crow, his cronies in the Senate; Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and other House members mentioned, are all part of the machine that wishes to dismantle anything related to firearms. This bill, like many introduced, is being done so to give these treacherous humans a reason to pat each other on the back, say “look, I’m hashtag doing something”, while simultaneously setting the stage for the law to be weaponized against anyone hosting anything on the internet related to firearms. Like all freedom squishing bills, we’ll be watching the progress of this one, and reporting back with any updates.

The rage mob comes for a New York gun store

by Leave a Comment

So far, there’s no indication that the suspect in the Buffalo shooting was prohibited from purchasing a firearm, but that’s not stopping a flood of outrage from being directed at the small gun shop in upstate New York where the 18-year old bought a Bushmaster rifle.

Robert Donald, the owner of Vintage Firearms in Endicott, New York, told the New York Post that he doesn’t recall details of the transaction, but that if any red flags had popped up, either in a background check or his interactions with the suspect, he wouldn’t have proceeded with the sale.

“He didn’t stand out,” he said of the teen. “Because if he did, I would’ve never sold him the gun.

“I don’t understand why an 18-year-old would even do this,” Donald said. “I know I didn’t do anything wrong, but I feel terrible about it.”

The rage mob doesn’t care about Donald’s feelings. Or rather, no matter how terrible he may feel, they want him feel even worse.

The Vintage Firearms Facebook page is now filled with comments from people accusing Donald of being complicit in the Buffalo massacre because he sold the firearm Gendron used.

“You sell assault weapons to teenagers. You sell weapons to violent White supremacists. You enabled this,” one commenter said.

“You trade in death. I hope it haunts you for the rest of your life,” another said.

… A sign in front of his shop said Vintage Firearms would be closed until May 22, but it didn’t indicate if that was a planned closure or if it was prompted by Saturday’s shooting.

Again, there’s no indication whatsoever that Donald did anything illegal or even inappropriate with the gun sale, but logic isn’t exactly the rage mob’s strong suit. If New York wanted to try to ban gun sales to under-21s, for example, Democrats could have easily included that in the 2013 SAFE Act, which did impose a ban on various features of modern sporting rifles while imposing registration requirements on all gun owners.

And we may very well see New York Democrats try to impose such a ban now, though whether or not any age restriction will be upheld by the courts in New York is another story. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul will be unveiling several new gun control proposals today, and while the original impetus for the legislation is the Supreme Court’s pending decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Hochul is almost certain to announce a bill or two that’s designed as a response to the shooting in Buffalo as well.

Hochul had scheduled the gun control announcement before the Buffalo shooting. The governor, speaking at a briefing over the weekend in Buffalo, said Saturday’s incident makes it more important than ever to close loopholes in New York’s laws.

“We are doing everything we can to ensure that our laws are tight, they’re ironclad, to ensure that our law enforcement have the resources they need,” Hochul said.

Hochul told reporters that she wants to expand the state’s existing ban on some assault weapons to include what are called AOWs, or any other weapon. She said some of these guns are functionally assault weapons.

… Hochul said Tuesday’s announcement will also include changes that could be made to New York’s laws to address an expected ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that could strike down New York’s restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon.

While New York gun owners and Second Amendment advocates brace for another attack on their right to keep and bear arms, the owner of Vintage Firearms also has to be concerned with a gun control law that’s already on the books in the state. Shortly before resigning in disgrace, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation empowering citizens and the state’s Attorney General to sue gun makers and gun sellers when a firearm is used in a crime. This attempt to hold the firearms industry financially responsible for the actions of criminals by using the state’s public nuisance law as an end run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will almost certainly be directed not only at the company that made the Bushmaster rifle sold to the suspect (Remington sold the brand as part of its bankruptcy proceedings in September of 2020), but to the store that made the sale as well. Whether or not the law is upheld after its first legal test remains to be seen, but if the rage mob doesn’t put Donald out of business, my guess is New York Attorney General Letitia James and a posse of gun control groups will try to finish the job in court.