NY trying to get around Protection Lawful Commerce

[DaleA]

It's death by a thousand cuts time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/n...s-lawsuit.html
New York state is trying to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The bill, passed by the Democratic-controlled State Legislature, is the first of its kind in the nation to specifically classify the illegal or improper marketing or sale of guns as a nuisance — a technical classification that state lawmakers say would open the gun industry to civil liability suits in New York.

(Note: President Biden is in favor of repealing the PLCAA but that is a separate matter. The NY law would try to get around the PLCAA.)

State lawmakers believe that the gun industry can be held liable under state law if its sales and marketing practices create a nuisance. The bill requires that gun companies establish “reasonable controls” to prevent their guns from being used, marketed or sold illegally in New York.

I read the article and I didn't get what "reasonable controls" gun companies were suppose to implement I just got the vague feeling that if a gun were used in a crime then the gun manufacturer HAD NOT implemented "reasonable controls" but that's just me.

My personal view is the gun manufacturers are the only ones that have something like the PLCAA because they are the only ones threatened to be put out of business if they DIDN'T have something like the PLCAA.

[44 AMP]

My personal view is the gun manufacturers are the only ones that have something like the PLCAA because they are the only ones threatened to be put out of business if they DIDN'T have something like the PLCAA.

well...yes...

To the best of knowledge, no other industry was ever threatened to be sued out of existence by a coalition of big city mayors with tax money as their funding, due to the "harm" caused by illegal 3rd party misuse of their products.

The PLCAA was Congress's response to that. In simple terms, it protects gun makers from being held responsible for illegal acts committed with their products, by other people. It does NOT protect gunmakers from liability if they manufacture a defective product.

It may seem like a small detail, and it is one that is constantly left out of discricptions of the PLCAA and its effects by the gun banners and their advocates in the media, but it is a vital point.

If a gunmaker makes a defective product, they can be sued just like every other manufacturer in the country who makes a defective product. THAT "little" fact is almost always left out of discussions (or at least one side's talkng points) all they ever say is how "gun makers can't be sued".

Now, it appears that lawmakers in New York are taking upon themselves the authority to determine what is and is not "improper marketing" and assess legal penalties based on their opinions.

TO me, this seems not only an infringement on gun rights but also free speech rights, as well.

[Tom Servo]

I read the article and I didn't get what "reasonable controls" gun companies were suppose to implement

Because there aren't any. Say Smith & Wesson sells a gun to a distributor in good faith, who then sells it to a retailer in good faith, who then sells it to a consumer after doing all the necessary background checks and paperwork. Then the gun gets stolen from the end user and gets used in a crime. The state will go after S&W by any means they can.

This isn't about public safety; it's about destroying the firearms industry. It's not a coincidence that the original lawsuits against gunmakers were supported by then-HUD-secretary Andrew Cuomo. He bragged that those lawsuits would be "death by a thousand cuts" for the gun industry.

They loved that strategy, and boy did they get steamed when it was taken away from them. They're going to do everything they can to find a backdoor and try again.

[sako2]

Being able to sue a gun manufacture because their product was used in a crime is stupid. If you drive a chevy, ford, etc and you kill someone with it then they should be sued.

[armoredman]

It's not stupid if you realize that this has absolutely nothing to do with crime whatsoever. They do not care about crime, but about control. It is nothing but another tool to destroy an industry and disarm the law-abiding peaceable gun owners.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by sako2

Being able to sue a gun manufacture because their product was used in a crime is stupid. If you drive a chevy, ford, etc and you kill someone with it then they should be sued.

There should be blanket immunity for all manufacturers and retailers regarding getting sued merely for producing or selling any kind of legal product. It's called personal responsibility...