The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
While I support the lawsuit’s premise, I find it incredibly ironic that we cannot get southern states to support stronger gun control laws. The victims should be mad as hell at their own state legislature for failing to prohibit the sale of guns of this type without extreme background checks and some “reason” why the gun is necessary. I understand that people have a right to own guns and most use them responsibly for sport or protection. But the victim’s families are due no more outrage than the victims in the Pittsburgh synagogue or any random street crime. Sick people kill and therefore all people need to be scrutinized as thoroughly as possible and sellers must record all sales including private transfers. That is not a guarantee, but laws should be designed to scare sellers into compliance if they can be held accountable if the weapon they sold is used in a killing.
“Extreme background check” ?? And a “reason” why the gun is necessary? Sorry, your liberal anti-gun biases are on display. The buyer passed a federal background check. Not the retailers fault. I would bet that you have never purchased a weapon. If you had, you would know how detailed the process is.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am not aware of a federal law that would make the retailer responsible for a transfer that does not comply with another states laws. In most states one can purchase a long gun without being a citizen of the state. Add to that even if the store would have stopped the sale and only sold a 10 round magazine in compliance with CO law there would have been nothing to stop the subject from going down the street to Walmart or any other retailer who sells AR 15 magazines and buying an extreme high capacity magazine of 40 to 100 rounds of ammunition. The rifle Is the only part of the transaction that requires a background check not the sale of other parts and accessories.
As to the claim against the USAF although it will cost all taxpayers this was the true failure in this situation. The sick scum in this case should have been on the list of unlawful possessors due to his conduct in the USAF and they dropped the ball. I do not know if I am the only one noticing a trend of government malfeasance in these cases but it would appear to be alarming to me.
What if this man who shot all those innocent people would have purchased a Ford pickup and had just ran over everyone/ Would the families be suing the Ford Motor Company?
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
While I support the lawsuit’s premise, I find it incredibly ironic that we cannot get southern states to support stronger gun control laws. The victims should be mad as hell at their own state legislature for failing to prohibit the sale of guns of this type without extreme background checks and some “reason” why the gun is necessary. I understand that people have a right to own guns and most use them responsibly for sport or protection. But the victim’s families are due no more outrage than the victims in the Pittsburgh synagogue or any random street crime. Sick people kill and therefore all people need to be scrutinized as thoroughly as possible and sellers must record all sales including private transfers. That is not a guarantee, but laws should be designed to scare sellers into compliance if they can be held accountable if the weapon they sold is used in a killing.
“Extreme background check” ?? And a “reason” why the gun is necessary? Sorry, your liberal anti-gun biases are on display. The buyer passed a federal background check. Not the retailers fault. I would bet that you have never purchased a weapon. If you had, you would know how detailed the process is.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am not aware of a federal law that would make the retailer responsible for a transfer that does not comply with another states laws. In most states one can purchase a long gun without being a citizen of the state. Add to that even if the store would have stopped the sale and only sold a 10 round magazine in compliance with CO law there would have been nothing to stop the subject from going down the street to Walmart or any other retailer who sells AR 15 magazines and buying an extreme high capacity magazine of 40 to 100 rounds of ammunition. The rifle Is the only part of the transaction that requires a background check not the sale of other parts and accessories.
As to the claim against the USAF although it will cost all taxpayers this was the true failure in this situation. The sick scum in this case should have been on the list of unlawful possessors due to his conduct in the USAF and they dropped the ball. I do not know if I am the only one noticing a trend of government malfeasance in these cases but it would appear to be alarming to me.
What if this man who shot all those innocent people would have purchased a Ford pickup and had just ran over everyone/ Would the families be suing the Ford Motor Company?