In the court of Connecticut State Judge Barbara Bellis, a motion to throw out a court case against the manufacturer, distributor and the retailer in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook in 2012. It appears that there is legislation that protects manufacturers from law suits such as this, but that has been ignored by this particular judge.
The the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), or PLCAA for short is a 2005 federal law that provides gun businesses general immunity from civil lawsuits. Now far be it from me to agree with Berni Sanders, but it seems that even he agrees with the principle that lawfully selling a legal item to someone, who then uses it for an illegal purpose should not expose the seller to a lawsuit for someone else's actions!
He voted for the legislation when it passed, and is quoted in the article. When asked whether he thinks the victims of a gun-related crime should be able to sue the manufacturer, “No, I don’t,” he said, explaining that he doesn’t think a dealer should face a lawsuit for selling a gun legally to a customer who then misuses the weapon in a crime"
Now lets get something straight, if someone comes in, says they want to buy a gun for a friend, gives you that friend's ID, tries to pay with a stolen credit card, fails a background check then pays in cash, and you allow him to buy a gun from you, frankly, you deserve all you get!!
But in this, and MANY other cases, the gun store, follows the law, to the letter, every part of it, yet is attacked along with the makers for the actions of someone they have no control over once hat transaction has taken place.
To attempt to sue a retailer, manufacturer and distributor in a case like that is akin to suing Earnhart , the truck company that brings them the cars, and Buick/GMC for the actions of Lakeisha Holloway who deliberately drove her Oldsmobile into a crowd in Las Vegas in January, killing 1 person, and injuring many more! What if it had been a Hummer? Would the contention in the court of Judge Barbara Bellis that "They argue the rifle shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a military-style assault weapon that is unsuited for civilian use" apply in this case?
Of course not. Sadly the realization that it really is people that kill people, no inanimate objects acting by themselves as a result of their production by the greedy out to make a few bucks gets lost in the sadness, and almost and desperation to try to find a reason for, and a way to prevent actions such as that of the low life who perpetrated such an appalling act in the future.
Sadly, the human condition dictates that from time to time, 'people' will seek to kill many of the people that surround them. To attempt to ban the items they use to carry out that act would seem to miss the point somewhat, as well as achieving little to nothing.
I leave you with this thought, on the 3rd anniversary of the appalling attack by the scum that were the Tsarnaev brothers. There has been no call to ban the equipment they used. Where people seek to do evil, they will find a way, be it bomb, gun, chemical or any other number of twisted methods they may come up with. Your best defense, be ready, be armed, and train train train!
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, feel free to comment. Apart from use of bad language, no comment is a bad comment!
Newsweek article from Conneticut