Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: "Connecticut Judge Dismisses Newtown Lawsuit Against Gun Maker" [View all]Littlepawkitty
(20 posts)137. Do you even know what the PLCAA says?
Here you go:
(5) Qualified civil liability action
(A) In generalThe term qualified civil liability action means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include
(A) In generalThe term qualified civil liability action means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product 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, including
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26.
So... it says that if a gun manufacturer (dealer, etc) breaks a law, they can be held liable. If they sell a defective product, they can be held liable....
they can't be sued because Bobby Smith legally purchased a weapon, after passing the background checks etc, and then uses the gun in an illegal fashion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903
It appears that you want to be able to sue gun manufacturers for..making guns.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
143 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why? Because it gives this ONE industry in our country immunity against law suits and
BlueCaliDem
Oct 2016
#27
Bullshit. What's not fair is that arms manufacturers are allowed to kill our kids with impunity
stone space
Oct 2016
#97
I would like to learn more about the "Arms manufacturings killing kids and crying like a victim."
Littlepawkitty
Oct 2016
#116
Even the virulently anti-gun WaPo owns up to a figure of 84 accidental deaths in 2015...
Eleanors38
Oct 2016
#143
The "doubt" about CDC research serves more as a tip-off to the gross slant an article takes...
Eleanors38
Oct 2016
#147
I'm not on trial here, pal. You don't get to do deposition here with me. Awful, huh?
BlueCaliDem
Oct 2016
#48
Unless you've seen all the evidence that Plaintiff planned to introduce, neither you nor I can say
BlueCaliDem
Oct 2016
#75
False. Remington or any other gun seller is subject to product liability actions.
Eleanors38
Oct 2016
#114
Right depends on interpretation. the 2a only applied to a militia if it was needed to secure a free
Ohioblue22
Oct 2016
#100
It is rather clear that the Founders intended everyone to be "the militia"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Oct 2016
#101
What is it you find funniest about children's bodies being pumped with bullets from an AR-15?
stone space
Oct 2016
#68
Fuck the NRA, fuck the PLCAA, and fuck the NRA's sexual predator candidate.
stone space
Oct 2016
#88
Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of sexual assault.
stone space
Oct 2016
#96