Can't find if this is being discussed already. I presume that this is going to be challenged sometime soon?
https://www.kcra.com/article/gov-new...lence/40590108
Can't find if this is being discussed already. I presume that this is going to be challenged sometime soon?
https://www.kcra.com/article/gov-new...lence/40590108
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
PLCA. Whoever wins against California should also sue every legislator that signed on to the law for international abuse of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protec...ce_in_Arms_Act
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Does the same requirements apply to manufacturers of bats, hammers, hatchets, etc.? Does it apply to martial arts trainers?
The government already regulates manufacturers as to safety and sales. Looks like it is easily overturned by the courts, but at what cost?
With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
"Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed legislation into law that would allow lawsuits against gun makers and distributors after gun violence."
How about a law that allows citizens to sue the state, the governor, the district attorney, judges, and the government for the actions of any criminals who they failed to prosecute, gave light sentences to, or let out of jail early who then went on to commit other crimes?
California's new ''Let's sue the firearms manufacturers for the unlawful acts of others'' law is the tippy-top of a rather slippery slope. By extension, this could also make way for litigation in cases where people misuse cars to run over and kill someone or assemble an explosive device using items purchased from a local hardware store leading to manufacturers of those items facing such litigation. I'm not sure that it stands up well against the PLCAA, but of course, that's for finer legal minds to determine.Originally Posted by Bart Carter
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
Every gun manufacturer should follow in Barrett’s footsteps and refuse to do business with .gov agencies in CA.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
Mag ban? Evil bullets? Anyway - once again, unless SCOTUS takes a case (yes, they sent some back for reconsideration given what Dumbford Bumdoofus did in 1698) in real time and issues an unambiguous decision (please talk to actual gun people about the everyday usage of firearms to avoid the usual holes and counterpunches) these will go on forever.It adds that firearm industry members would be banned “from manufacturing, marketing, importing, offering for wholesale sale, or offering for retail sale a firearm-related product that is abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety in California, as specified.”
I couldn’t agree more..would love to see what California legislature would do when time comes for LE to replace firearms and they get told by the industry, that’s it’s too risky to do business in California, and we won’t be selling you anymore..
Simple. They'll make an acception for LE, like every other time. If there is money to be made someone will make it
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
This is where having some balls comes in, exception or not, just say no..if all the manufacturers would stick together on this and say no, and mean it, they could break their back, and they wouldn’t try it again for awhile.. but, that’s a pipe dream..
Reply With Quote