New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This article is from the Brady campaign......
"How to Bring a Successful Case Against Gun Manufacturers and Sellers and
Avoid Dismissal Under the Federal Gun Industry Legal Shield Law"

Background......
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

In 2005, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA bars cases against gun manufacturers and sellers for harm "resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a [firearm]."
It contains several limitations, however, that allow cases to proceed, the most important of which are:
1) An action against a gun dealer (but not a manufacturer) for negligent
entrustment or negligence per se, and
2) An action against a gun manufacturer or dealer who "knowingly
violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of
the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for
which relief is sought…."
The PLCAA also states that its purpose is to block lawsuits concerning "harm solely
caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm," 15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(1)
allowing a plaintiff to argue that the PLCAA should not bar cases
where the gun manufacturer or dealer is an independent cause of harm.

So, the Brady group has thought of ways to get around this Act....

"Bringing a Case That Will Not Be Blocked By the PLCAA".....

Notwithstanding the limitations of the Act, gun companies can be expected to
attempt to use the PLCAA to win dismissals of virtually any gun lawsuit. Therefore,
it is important to prepare for that likelihood. In several cases filed since enactment of
the PLCAA, Brady Center attorneys have worked with local trial counsel to craft
complaints so that they highlight the facts and claims necessary to survive motions
to dismiss based on the PLCAA.

Very interesting and educational read for all firearms dealers. See link below.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/vice-avoiding-dismissal.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,578 Posts
So .... the *******s in the brady campaign STILL can't grasp the concept that if they were to accomplish this truly ridiculous act of suing a business and/or manufacturer for the actions of another HUMAN, then it will also allow people to go sue happy in America again as many will sue the dealerships and the car manufacturers for the death of their loved one in a drunk driver related accident. Way to go you ****tards!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,195 Posts
Screw Jim Brady, his dead body and the scum bags that run that place. May Ebola run rampant through there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I knew this Act was in effect, however I did not realize that several suits have been settled in favor of plaintiff just because some clever attorney creatively finds a way to make an "end run" around the law, by showing how the dealer is "an independent cause of harm". I suppose this is possible due to any slight vagueness that ANY law has embedded in it. A truly clever lawyer can wiggle around the intent of the law, and pin blame on an innocent party. Truly disgusting. And yes, I see how the implications of this law could be transferred to other industries, such as blaming auto manufacturers, makers of alcoholic drinks, ammo makers, even tool makers, etc.

Clearly the FFL dealers, especially those who have brick and mortar premises open to the public are exposing themselves to huge liability risks just by having people handle (unloaded) firearms in the place of business. Guns are easily subject to theft if they are not chained to the counter, ammo is easily open to theft (even at WalMart), etc, thereby making the dealer "an independent cause of harm" by not using due diligence in storage, security, or whatever.

Amazing how a judge can interpret a law and decide that a manufacturer is responsible for an illegal use of a gun if instructions and training were not given to the dealer as to how to display and handle firearms safely, and to totally prevent theft from the premises. ???? So maybe the gov't could be blamed as the ultimate culpable party for not providing proper training to the manufacturer regarding safe storage and display of distributor's inventory so that the manufacturer could then pass along those same instructions to the distributor/dealer? Where does this insanity end?

Consequently the dealer is NOT protected by the PLCAA if an argument can be crafted showing the dealer to be "an independent cause of harm"....
Clearly those of us who have physical displays and security systems better check them over and maybe double or triple liability coverage....the Brady Bunch is after dealers and manufacturers, and they will not stop. Add the likes of Bloomberg and his army of arm-twisting, logic-bending liars, and we have a formidable challenge to retain our status as Free People. God Bless.........and don't forget to check SCOPE for candidates friendly to the 2A
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top