Dear Ms. Clinton,
Please try and repeal the Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I dare you. I double dog dare you. I had my identity stolen a few years ago. At least one person opened up several credit cards in my name. My tax return was collected by a different person twice. My credit still hasn’t recovered which has caused me lasting problems in my ability to get a mortgage.
So please change the law. I will raise an army of lawyers on the promise of contingency fees to sack the credit card companies, computer manufacturers, internet service providers, and everybody else my lawyers can think of for negligent in a class action suit by the victims of identity theft, for not being able to foresee that their products would be used by criminals for illegal activity that has caused me lasting damage. People hate the credit card companies a lot more than they hate guns. Please allow me to drag the fat cat CEO of a credit card company before a jury. I will open the flood gates of litigation against your big bank donors. So please, please, establish that a company can be held liable for the illegal actions of its customers. I have a private island that I want to buy.
Sadly, I’m afraid it simply doesn’t work that way. –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
My take is that the lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers had nothing to do with “make them pay” for the actions of criminals, but to drain them financially by having to respond to a myriad of lawsuits across the nation.
Basically Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts.
Well… technically yes. But I worked in product liability for a while as a technical expert. The point isn’t so much to win as it is to be a nuisance. I’ve worked cases were a people have removed the guards off of saws or deactivated the lock-out/tag-out safety controls and still brought suit and collected a settlement. If she’s going to fight dirty, we should be prepared to do the same.
Since when have progressives ever considered the law of unintended consequences?
Since when do people who have felony records against them, are able to purchase guns? (This is one of Hillary Clinton’s 3 key points in her speech).
You’re missing her desired endstate.
Currently, if a “Delay” NICS check isn’t completed within three days, the gun store is allowed to complete the transaction. Presumably, she is asserting that convicted felons prefer to buy their firearms from FFL holders (adding perjury to their list of offenses), and that they can do so if the NICS check isn’t completed within three days.
By changing this provision in the law, then cutting NICS resources to the bone, she seems to believe that she can indefinitely delay the sale of firearms.
Right. She wants to end “default proceeds”. If the FBI can’t get a definite “proceed” or “deny” in three days, it’s assumed to be a “proceed” by default, and the sale can be completed.
By ending default proceeds, a delay for more than three days becomes a “deny” by default.
And then all she has to do is shut down NICS (via EO, perhaps, or by cutting their funding, or diverting FBI staff away from the phones, or not renewing their Internet service, or….) to stop ALL commercial gun sales nationwide.
I like you, because I like an optimist. If you think the courts are there to protect YOU, you are delusional. I like delusional people, they can be amusing!