Posts Tagged lawful commerce in arms act

Remington Insurer Pays $73 Million To Sandyhook Families

From Bearing Arms:

Suing gun makers over their marketing practices has indeed become more common since the Supreme Court declined to hear Remington’s appeal in 2019, with gun control activists and anti-gun politicians from New Jersey to Mexico using the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling as the main legal argument in seeking to blame gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their products.

The settlement with the Sandy Hook families certainly won’t do anything to discourage future lawsuits, though the Supreme Court will have another chance to weigh in on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was approved on a bipartisan basis by Congress in 2005 specifically to stop this type of litigation.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Biden Says Unity While Attacking The Bill Of Rights

From Ammoland:

“My first day in office,” he declares in the video, “I’m going to send a bill to Congress repealing the liability protection for gun manufacturers, closing the background check loopholes and waiting period that now let too many people slip through the cracks.”

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Second Amendment Deserves Same Protections As First

From Reason:

Should gun manufacturers be liable for misuse of guns? Should printing press manufacturers be liable for misuse of presses? The answer to both questions is “no,” according to an amicus brief I filed today in support of a Supreme Court cert. petition.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Conn Court Rules Against Civil Rights

From Powerline Blog:

The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision is not a good faith exercise of judicial judgment. The four-judge majority engaged in political activism by issuing an anti-gun ruling that is obviously wrong under the Constitution and federal law. It will be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. But there is a lesson here: liberals love to talk about the rule of law, but what they mean is rule by lawyers. Rule by lawyers who dictate policies that the people and their elected representatives don’t want, and that are likely to be at odds with the Constitution. This Connecticut decision is a prime example.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments