Under the terms of the PLCAA, the claims brought here, bythe victims of a criminal who shot them, against a federally licensed manufacturer and a federally licensed seller of firearms must be dismissed. But the claims brought against an unlicensed foreign manufacturer of firearms may proceed. [More]The opinion, filed yesterday, in online.
Here's the statement from NSSF.
The Legal Community Against Violence, which had filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs, had this to say.
[Via GG]
1 comment:
Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. Incorporation of the Second Amendment by the Ninth Circuit. States claiming Tenth Amendment exemption from federal gun laws for guns that never crossed state lines.
Good stuff, but it's like rebuilding the Cathedral of Notre Dame stone by stone in the shadow of the original. That Bill of Rights thing. I've read it. It's real, no matter what the lawyers say. Shall not be infringed.
"If Glock and RSR were held legally responsible for this criminal shooting, then the police department to whom the firearm was originally sold would be even more responsible."
Maybe blame the shooter? But he doesn't have any money. Glock does.
Mmost of our citizen are belong to Jerry Springer.
Post a Comment