Monday, March 18, 2019

Wrong amendment

Under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), plaintiffs are generally barred from filing suit against gun manufacturers or sellers for criminal or unlawful misuse of weapons they make and market. The act is designed to reinforce traditional product-liability law and to protect gun rights from activist judges. After all, no one thinks that Ford should be held liable if a terrorist drives an F-250 into a crowd. Yet there are activists who believe that, say, Ruger should be held liable if a bank robber uses an SR9 to commit a robbery.
The car is covered under interstate commerce, the gun is covered in the Second Amendment, under "Well regulated militia.."  If the gun owner owner and manufacturer does not confer militia control of military weapons properly, then the gun trader is in violation of our claim of 'Well regulated militia.."

If the gun is known to be military or defensive grade, then it always is under management of a 'well regulated militia' including connection to the state by virtue of having mention in the Constitution.
So, yes indeed, the gun trader can violate the terms of the Second amendment and be liable; just as much as Citizen United has free assembly rights.

No comments: