Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
6. Funny.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 03:30 PM
Apr 2016
Vice: So what exactly was PLCAA designed to do, and how did you get around it?

Mesner-Hage: It was passed in 2005 in the shadow of the Iraq War—I don't think any member of the public knew that it was being passed.


We knew. It wasn't passed in the middle of the night like the NY safe act was. I wonder if Mesner-Hage approves of that.


Vice: So how does PLCAA work in practice?


Mesner-Hage: So what PLCAA did was add an additional level of protection. It did that by saying, as a general rule, you can't sue gun companies for damages resulting from the criminal use of a firearm. And most of the time, that [was] the way that people were trying to hold gun companies responsible; they were saying that someone along the way had misused the gun, and that was giving rise to lawsuit[s]. So that was the baseline of PLCAA.


Their lawyer admits what we have said all along.

But then it creates these exceptions, which is where our case kind of comes in, which is to say, "Yes, we are looking to hold these companies responsible based on Adam Lanza's obviously criminal act. However, we fall into an exception, and PLCAA is clear that if you meet an exception, you can go forward."


Precisely what the PLCAA was passed into law to protect against, and they know and admit it.

It's hard to know exactly what we'll find, but there's a deep level of intuitiveness to the theory of our case in terms of [the company] taking a military weapon, selling it to the public, and marketing it as basically a mass casualty weapon, and continuing to market and sell it that way, despite it being used in repeated mass shootings and shootings that are more fatal than any other type of shootings.


It isn't a military weapon. Its a civilian weapon. That's not theory, its fact. Nobody markets an ar-15 as a "mass casualty weapon".

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»America Is About to See H...»Reply #6