The other day we reported that the Oregon Firearms Federation had filed suit against Measure 114.

OFF was unhappy because they didn’t see any of the nation organizations helping them.

Well maybe somebody in the GOA or FPC reads this blog or got forwarded the email from OFF but for whatever reason yesterday the GOA signed on to the OFF suit.

In addition the FPC filed a complaint (suit) for declaratory judgement and injunctive relief.

1. The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense. By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (“standard capacity magazines”), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.

2. Absent relief from this Court, Defendants will violate the constitutionally protected rights of Oregon’s law-abiding citizens and reinforce the erroneous notion that the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010).

3. Worse yet, Defendants will commit these constitutional violations without any realistic prospect of diminishing the misuse of firearms or the incidence of horrific mass-shootings. The State’s ban on standard capacity magazines will do nothing to address or ameliorate these public policy concerns. All it will do is leave law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to attack from better-armed and more ruthless assailants.

The battle goes on. It is good to see the GOA and FPC step up. I was thinking they would not as they were already doing battle in the ninth circuit court with cases from California. It will be interesting to see what the Federal Judge in Portland decides.

Regardless, I was wrong and I’m glad I was.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

In 2005 congress passed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act often referenced as “PLCAA”. this was a bipartisan bill where both Democrats and Republicans worked together to protect the arms industry.

There are people out there that hate that we possess firearms. They look at the instrument and believe that if the instrument is no more than there will be no more violence committed with guns. They are correct, if there are no more guns then there will be no more gun crime.

The reality is that there will never again be a time when there are no guns. In countries with almost total gun bans bad people still have guns. Japan has some of the most stringent firearm laws in the world. Almost nobody owns a gun. Yet a man was able to build a gun and use it to assassinate a politician.

The fact that their goal is not obtainable has never stopped them from trying to rid the country of all guns. Their goto argument is “it would be worse without the gun control laws that are already in place.” We see this with every win where we claw back more of our right to keep and bear arms. “The streets will run red with blood if you let people own guns legally!”

The almost always leave off the “legally” part because if they actually said it outloud people might start to question how a law that makes it illegal to possess/carry a gun affects a person that has decided to commit a crime like murder.

There are a number of posts about how they fight the battle in the chambers of state and in the courts, but there is another attack vector, that of making it too expensive to own or commerce in arms.

Consider the case of Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle did nothing illegal. The firearm he was carrying was legally purchased. He was legally carrying it. He was in the place he was legally. He did nothing illegal.

Then a mentally deranged criminal started to chase him. He ran and when he could run no more he fired killing that criminal. He started to render aid when the mob started after him. He ran again.

When the mob had chased him down they attacked him. They tried to kill him with a club (long board) and when he responded with a shot they started to back off but one did not and attacked him again. He fired and killed that attacker, also a convicted criminal. A fourth man started to attack him but stopped. Kyle did not fire. That fourth man then did attack and Kyle fired again, destroying that man’s arm.

All of this was caught on multiple different cameras.

Kyle is still being punished for this. First he was prosecuted criminally. He spent time in jail and had to raise huge amounts of money for his defense. When he was found innocent of all charges he was set free. At that point the civil cases started and they are ongoing as of November 2022. It is unlikely that he will be free of these attacks via lawfare for many many more years to come.

The process is the punishment.

People entered the capitol building on Jan 6th, 2021. Those people are suffering from lawfare. Some have been held in jail for so long that they are pleading guilty just to have a chance of getting their lives back.

Prior to the PLCAA the gun grabbers where getting laws passed as fast as they could to make it as difficult as possible to legally purchase or carry a firearm. They were not satisfied. Even with all of their infringements people were still buying guns.

The answer they came up with was to remove firearm stores and manufacturers from the civilian market. The method they choose was to haunt the grieving like ghouls from a horror film. The parents grieving because their gangbanger son had been shot robbing the local store were prayed upon by these ghouls.

The ghouls showed up and whispered sweet nothings into the ears of the grieving. “Your son was executed.” “Your son never had a chance.” “He shouldn’t have shot your son, he should have called the cops and waited.” “If he hadn’t of had a gun your son would still be alive.” “He is responsible for the cold blooded murder of your son.” “Not only him, but the guy that sold him the gun.” “The guy that sold him the gun got it from manufacturer who has lots of money.”

In just a few days the parents or loved ones go from grieving the loss with anger and revenge in their hearts to having a target for all that hurt and anger. Not only the man that shot their son, but the entire chain that lead to that instant.

And the ghouls did this time and time again. These cases would be filed and the defendant would need to hire a lawyer to represent them. Even if it is a cheap lawyer it is going to cost in excess of $10k to go to court. And in cases like this, where the plaintiffs are well funded, that will skyrocket.

Just listen to the adds selling “CCW insurance.” $100K before you see the courtroom and upwards of a million after.

This was driving small businesses out selling firearms. The gun grabbers with their ghouls were succeeding.

That is until the people reached out to their representatives and pushed for the PLCAA. With the PLCAA the cost of being sued because somebody else did something wrong fell greatly. To the point where it was almost possible to write a short note to the court yourself saying “PLCAA” and having the case dismissed.

The gun grabbers have hated the PLCAA since the day it was signed and they have been looking for away around it.

After Sandy Hook the ghouls showed up and pretty soon the lawsuits were filed against all the regular targets.

And they got tossed out under the PLCAA.

The ghouls went back to the well and regrouped. They decided to go after Bushmaster. Bushmaster had been sold to Remington so this was seen as very deep pockets.

The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. The plaintiffs’ first theory
of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users.

The plaintiffs’ second theory of liability was that the defendants marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the rifle as a combat weapon that is intended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and recreation. In connection with this second theory of liability, the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ marketing of the rifle to civilians for offensive assault missions was a substantial factor in causing the decedents’ injuries in that L’s attack, had it occurred at all, would have been less lethal if L had not been encouraged by the defendants’ marketing campaign to select the rifle in question as his weapon of choice.

Bushmaster moved to have the case dismissed via the PLCAA. The lower court agreed. The appeals court agreed. Then the Connecticut supreme court got involved.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we agree with the defendants that most of the plaintiffs’ claims
and legal theories are precluded by established Connecticut law and/or PLCAA. For example, we expressly reject the plaintiffs’ theory that, merely by selling semi-automatic rifles—which were legal at the time1—to the civilian population, the defendants became responsible for any crimes committed with those weapons.

So the court says that Bushmaster can’t be sued for selling the weapon as that was protected under the PLCAA. Unfortunately they go on:

The plaintiffs have offered one narrow legal theory, however, that is recognized under established Connecticut law. Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior. Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of PLCAA, we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case. The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers. Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations. We affirm the trial court’s judgment insofar as that court struck the plaintiffs’ claims predicated on all other legal theories.

In other words, what Bushmaster did was perfectly legal, but they can be sued for the deaths because they advertised incorrectly.

DONNA L. SOTO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF VICTORIA L. SOTO), ET AL. v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

This was appealed to the Supreme Court but certiorari was denied.

Remington Arms Co. v. Soto

At this point Remington was bankrupt and out of business. They were selling of the different parts of the company to pay creditors. When all that was left there was only a legal shell which was still being sued. The only people at risk at this point where the insurance carriers. They were on the hook for a great deal of money if they lost in court and they were on the hook for a great deal of money if they continued the fight.

If they would have continued the fight the case would have been heard by the lower court in CT. Nobody knows how they would have ruled. Regardless of that ruling it would have been appealed at the state level back to the CT supreme court. At that point it is likely that the parties would have again appealed to the US Supreme Court which may or may not have granted certiorari.

While many have decried the insurance companies settling out of court we really can’t fault them. They are not part of gun culture in the least. They are money people and they see everything in terms of money.

We should be faulting the CT Supreme court. If you read the 148 pages of the opinion you will find that not all of the Judges agreed. That it sounds an awful lot like a group of people attempting to get the results they wanted rather than what was legally required.

At this point we see another Lawfare case going on. Down in Uvalde. The plaintiffs have a long list of defendants. All of the police officers are going to duck out of the final case because they have no duty to protect. If any of the officials of the school district or city are found guilty the taxpayers will pay the bill. When everything is said in done, it is likely that this case will end up only against the gun manufacturer and retailer.

The question will become, will the state courts of Texas all apply the PLCAA correctly and how much will it cost to have that happen.

Mother of 10-year-old Uvalde shooting victim sues school district, police and gun manufacturer

The mother of a 10-year-old killed in the Uvalde school shooting has filed a federal lawsuit against the gun-maker and seller, the city of Uvalde, its school district and several law enforcement officers.

Sandra Torres’ daughter Eliahna was one of 19 students and 2 teachers killed by an 18-year-old gunman at Robb Elementary in May.

“I miss her every moment of every day,” Torres said in a joint press release with her lawyers from Everytown for Gun Safety’s legal team and Texas-based LM Law Group. “I’ve brought this lawsuit to seek accountability. No parent should ever go through what I have.”

The new lawsuit alleges that Daniel Defense — the manufacturer of the shooter’s weapon — violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, arguing that the Georgia-based company’s marketing on social media and video games “prime young buyers to purchase AR-15-style rifles as soon as they are legally able.” Earlier this year, gun-maker Remington settled a lawsuit for $73 million with the Sandy Hook shooting victims’ families who had also targeted the company’s marketing.

I said the holders of Remington who settled the Sandy Hook lawsuit were going to fuck us over.

They did.

Now every grieving parent will be targeted by the blood dancers to file a lawsuit that is engineered to be a runaround the PLCAA.

Just look at the opening of the text of the lawsuit:

What utter horseshit.

This is the Daniel Defense ad they wanted for the Super Bowl.

Their entire marketing campaign is “be a responsible loving parent abd buy our gun to defend your family.”

But a few crying moms and some sympathetic jurors and they will lose.

Unless a Judge in Texas recognizes the purpose of this lawsuit as a way of voiding the PLCAA and dismisses the case.

The Sandy Hook parents and the anti-gun industry has figured out a new avenue for lawfare and they are going to use it.

It is going to suck for the industry unless it’s stopped.

My response:

Preemption is another battle heading our way. The gun rights infringers posit this as “local control” or “local government.” They talk about all the other things that conservatives want done at a local level so why not “gun safety” laws?

It is another method of lawfare. It is another method of making it difficult for people to carry for fear of accidentally stepping over an invisible line.

As an example, the state of Massachusetts as a requirement for an FOID. You need a FOID or CTL in order to possess a firearm or ammunition in the state. There are no exceptions for “just visiting.”

A few years ago a student had a fit when he saw a civil war musket ball on his teachers desk. He was arrested for having “ammunition component”. This went to trial and the judge found that the professor had indeed broken the law and that having “ammunition component(s)” was the same as having ammunition which is the same as having an firearm.

Jail time.

Say you were visiting a friend in VT and went shooting. You had a blast and went through a few hundred rounds. You say thank you to your friend for letting you shoot their guns and their ammunition and home to PA.

During your trip through Massachusetts you get pulled over for speeding. During the interaction the cop sees a shell casing that has fallen out of your jacket. It got caught there when you were shooting. He asks you what it is and you explain and he arrests you.

All because you traveled over an invisible line into a place with different laws.

Many states have a preemption statute in regards to firearms. These preemption statutes say that a local government can not make laws regarding firearms. Some just say laws that are at odds with state laws.

Not all states.

This leads to the case where laws can change not only as you travel from state to state, but could change as you travel within a state at county, city or town lines. A Democrat in Tennessee just introduced a bill which would require you to have a carry permit if the area you are in is a metropolitan area with a population over 500,000 OR a county with a population over 900,000.

SB0010 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, relative to firearms.

The standard infringers want to remove preemption for the state statutes. If they can do this it means that any rinky-dink village, town, or city can pass a “regulation” that makes some it more difficult to carry or own a firearm.

Now most of these would be struck down in court. Unfortunately each and every one of them would have to be individually challenged in court. And as soon as one was knocked down another would be put in its place.

As long as our representatives are able to pass laws that are unconstitutional without consequences they will continue to do so. And “voting them out” isn’t enough. Do you think that Nancy or Burnie really care if they get reelected? They have made millions as representatives living on salaries that should not have created that much wealth.

Just as a side note, I’ve had the privilege of working with a number of SES people in the government. They get paid $135k-$204k. A US Senator or Representative gets paid $174,000 per year. The ones that I worked with were rather high up in the SES pay scale. None of them were millionaires.

AOC managed to go from a poor broke bartender to a millionaire in just over two years on $174,000/year living in DC buying at least one very expensive car and maintaining a residence in her home district.

If you hear people talking about preemption, know that it is good when it comes to gun laws.

This is one of the most horrific stories I’ve read recently.

EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s frightening for society.’ Thousands of convicted pedophiles in California are being released from prison in less than a year for horrific acts, including rape, sodomy and sexual abuse of kids under 14, DailyMail.com investigation reveals

Pedophiles are getting less than a year prison time after a range of horrific acts, including raping kids under 14, a DailyMail.com investigation reveals.

Analysis of a California database of sex offenders shows thousands of child molesters are being let out after just a few months, despite sentencing guidelines.

More than 7,000 sex offenders were convicted of ‘lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age’ but were let out of prison the same year they were incarcerated, data from the California Megan’s Law database says.

Others who committed some of the worst child sex crimes on the statute books served similarly short sentences, including 365 pedophiles convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child who spent less than 12 months in prison, 39 cases of sodomy with a child under 16, and three cases of kidnapping a child under 14 ‘with intent to commit lewd or lascivious acts’, according to the data.

One offender in the database is Reseda, resident Carlos Alexander Nahue, 48, who was convicted of ‘continuous sexual abuse of a child’ in 2015.

His Los Angeles court records say he was charged in October 2014 and pled no contest to the crime in January 2015 – but was sentenced to just two days in an LA county jail and five years of probation.

DailyMail.com compiled the data of the 54,986 sex offenders who were listed on the website in July 2019 and analyzed the results.

It showed 41,794 (76%) committed offenses involving children.

DailyMail.com compared the published dates of these pedophiles’ convictions versus the year they were released from prison according to the Megan’s Law database.

The results showed that the average pedophile served two years and 10 months in prison.

And 7,152 pedophiles who committed this crime served less than a year.

Some 114 men who committed the even worse version of this offense, where the act against the under-14 child was ‘by force or fear’, ended up serving less than a year in prison, according to the data.

Others serving less than 12 months included 13 counts of aggravated sexual assault of an under-14 with intent to rape, three counts of kidnapping a child under 14 with intent to commit lewd or lascivious acts, five counts of assault with intent to rape an under-18, and two counts of pimping minors.

California is all but decriminalizing child rape.

These are vicious predators who have received the most minor punishments for their crimes.

California doesn’t care about children, California serves children up to groomers abd pedophiles on a platter.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Leftist elite, especially of California, are pro-pedophile and anti-child.

If there was ever a justification for frontier justice, this is it.  There is a part of me that wants you run a pedophile safari in California.  Guided hunts for pedophiles.  No limit.