A rising trend among states opposing firearms is to bypass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), arguing that the very presence and marketing of guns create a distinctive public disturbance, jeopardizing the ideal state of law, order, and peaceful living.
The PLCAA safeguards gun manufacturers and vendors from being sued if their products are misused by criminals. The advocates of civilian disarmament cannot tolerate this protection, as they aim to render civilian gun possession obsolete and cause financial collapse to the businesses involved in manufacturing and selling firearms by inundating them with baseless and vexing legal actions.
In order to facilitate this, some states have taken cues from the Texas abortion law, enabling almost anyone to file a lawsuit against firearm producers or sellers, alleging that they have been adversely affected by "gun violence."
Hawaii has chosen to implement this disturbance law tactic, and now the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is contesting this state law in court. The following is their official statement declaring the lawsuit…
NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, initiated a legal dispute against Hawaii's recent public disturbance law that, unless halted, will permit unwarranted lawsuits against firearm industry participants due to the illicit and negligent misuse of firearms by unrelated third parties. NSSF argues that the law intends to circumvent the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and the laws established by Congress.
"Hawaii is trying to counteract the intent of Congress when the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was approved with a significant bipartisan majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and enacted into law by President George W. Bush," stated Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. "Public disturbance laws like Hawaii's are simply a ploy to drive ‘legislation through litigation,' which is the precise reason Congress enacted PLCAA in the first place. Such laws are unconstitutional and abuse the legal process to push a political agenda outside of legislative channels."
Hawaii's HB 426, signed into law by Gov. Josh Green, seeks to control products of the firearm industry made outside of Hawaii by imposing an undefined and unenforceable set of "reasonable controls." The law permits state officials and private parties to file civil suits against members of the firearm industry for damages stemming from the criminal misuse of firearms or ammunition by a distant third party. This goes against the spirit of PLCAA; it is, in fact, precisely what PLCAA was intended to avert.
Hawaii is trying to revive the kind of baseless lawsuits that states and local governments attempted in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which led to the passage of the PLCAA. The PLCAA was enacted because Congress recognized that anti-gun politicians were exploiting the courts to bypass the legislative process. The irony is that certain elected officials then – and now – oppose the PLCAA because it obstructed their "attempt to circumvent the Legislative branch of government" and "would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution."
The PLCAA simply enshrines existing tort law. The law states that these politically motivated lawsuits cannot be filed against a manufacturer or retailer who had no involvement in the criminal or wrongful misuse of their product.
No comments:
Post a Comment