Corporate Lawyers Can’t Tell the Truth about Gun Laws
via NRA-ILA
The newly formed anti-gun Firearms Accountability Counsel Task Force was featured in a National Public Radio interview with attorney Mike Schissel of Arnold & Porter, one of the big corporate law firms that has joined together with other firms to provide free legal services to anti-gun groups. Mr. Schissel openly bragged about the “collective talent and collective manpower” of his group and that “the brute force of the major law firms in this country” would use “novel and aggressive thinking … to put a full-court press on the gun lobby.”
This “novel and aggressive thinking” clearly does not involve telling the truth about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), since Mr. Schissel claimed “There’s no other law – no other law at all – that shields consumer products from safety regulation.” He further alleged that “there are state laws that literally immunize a gun seller of any liability even if that gun seller knows he’s selling a gun to a criminal.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Schissel, literally every part of his claim is untrue. The firearms industry is not the only industry to enjoy the type of protection the PLCAA affords, and it most certainly does not provide blanket immunity from lawsuits. Any honest lawyer would also understand that it is a federal crime to knowingly sell a firearm to a criminal. There is no law which can immunize against this action in such cases.
The truth is that gun manufacturers have been found liable for defective firearms and gun dealers have been held both criminally and civilly liable for selling guns to prohibited persons. While spurious claims like the Connecticut suit against Remington Arms and the Brady Campaign’s lawsuit against Lucky Gunner were dismissed, Badger Arms was found liable for selling guns to an obvious straw purchaser – a case Brady Campaign attorneys were forced to leave after violating Wisconsin Supreme Court rules on pretrial publicity.
The truth about the PLCAA cannot be clearer. It was passed after anti-gun activists partnered with big-firm plaintiffs’ lawyers, big-city mayors, and the Clinton administration to bring an avalanche of lawsuits against the firearm industry and force them to either settle or go bankrupt from legal fees. The PLCAA only prohibits lawsuits for injuries “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of firearms – the same way that car manufacturers and auto dealerships are not liable for injuries caused by drunk drivers.
Schissel’s other “novel and aggressive” strategy is to claim that state carry laws infringe on the rights of private property owners because they have to post “No Gun” signs to exclude people who are legally carrying a concealed firearm. Following this line of reasoning, business owners must be equally burdened by having to post signs to exclude other legal activity – like “No Smoking,” “No Pets,” and “No Shirt-No Shoes-No Service.” It is laughable to think that the effort to post these signs is so terrible and onerous that it can only be remedied by the courts. Continue reading
Trump: The Official NRA Q&A
via NRA-ILA
This year’s race for the White House is like no other in our history. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that, if elected, she will come after our firearm freedoms on her very first day in office. So it’s no exaggeration to say that the Second Amendment is on the ballot this November. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discuss our right to keep and bear arms and what’s at stake for America’s gun owners in this election.
Chris W. Cox: Mr. Trump, I’d like to begin with an issue of concern to many gun owners. In your 2000 book, The America We Deserve, you stated that while you oppose gun control, you support the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms—the so-called “assault weapons” ban—and also support a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm. During this election, however, you’ve repeatedly pointed out you oppose gun and magazine bans and only support background checks that are instant, accurate and fair. Would you say your position has evolved on these issues?
Donald J. Trump: Absolutely. Over the past 15 years I’ve learned a great deal about how we can protect the good people of this country from those who mean to do us harm. Gun control is not the answer—protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the answer. Furthermore, gun bans don’t work. Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work. I have two sons who don’t just believe in the Second Amendment, they live it. They hunt, target shoot, shoot competitively and carry firearms for personal protection. They’re NRA members, and so am I. I also have a concealed-carry permit. Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unshakable.
CWC: As you know, the future of our firearm freedoms hangs in the balance with the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia—the author of the Heller decision—which held that the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. I have a couple of questions related to the Supreme Court, but first, do you agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes? Continue reading
HuffPo Pulls Anti-Gun Article After People Notice Them Advocating Gun Theft
It is not as if a story like this will surprise anyone who has taken any notice of the anti-gun “movement” for the past decade or so. That crowd has a rich history of having no respect or appreciation for the rule of law and for projecting their own sick personality disorders onto the rest of society. This behavior can be seen frequently when gun-grabbers spout off their sick world views, such as “nobody needs a gun unless you plan on killing someone” or when they advocate new (and useless) gun control laws which are in direct conflict with state preemption laws or, almost universally, the United States Constitution. This has been the case for decades, if not centuries, and the advent of the internet and the growth of social media has added some fun new twists into the mix.
Further evidence of the bizarre mindset of many associated with the anti-gun movement can be seen on just about any pro-gun social media page, where the talk inevitably devolves into obsessive conversation about male genitalia. Anti-gunners are so desperate to decry “lax gun laws” that they cannot be bothered to figure out what the laws are and end up committing felonies, as Katie Couric and her team did during the production of their gun control hit piece. They also take to social media to continue spreading their anti-law-and-order platform, like when the absurdly-named Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (nee National Coalition to Ban Handguns) recently for citizens to misuse the 911 system and waste police resources by sending police on an emergency run any time they notice someone carrying an open or concealed firearm. “For the children.”
But now, the anti-gun groups, their army of social media robots and astroturf trolls, and their sympathetic media puppets are sinking to even greater depths.
The latest group of social media malcontents is a small contingent (perhaps as small as one) of anti-gun trolls operating a large number of Twitter accounts whose main shtick has been violent, potty-mouthed attacks on anyone who disagrees with them (whom they have, again, strangely sexualized with the nickname “gun humpers”), sharing photos of their sex toy collections, and promoting vandalism of public spaces with anti-gun messages. As if online harassment, stickers, and spray paint were not enough, this group has now apparently graduated from cyberbullying and petty crime to promoting out-and-out felonious theft of firearms, to include breaking and entering and burglarizing of people’s homes, garages, and vehicles. Continue reading
Vote Now to Get the Second Amendment into the Debate Discussion
The NRA-ILA is helping to spread the word about Americans’ opportunity to shape the direction of the 2016 Presidential Debates.
The Open Debate Coalition website allows users to vote for questions that are important to them and ABC and CNN debate moderators have agreed to consider the top 30 questions as chosen by voters for use in the Sunday, October 9, debate.
One of those questions, posed by Tim S., is gaining ground with nearly 20,000 votes. Tim’s question reads “How will you ensure the 2nd amendment is protected?“. The question follows up by noting that “[t]oo much crime is blamed on the tool, not the person. How will you protect law abiding citizens to protect themselves.“
If you watched the first debate between Presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, you may have thought that the debate was a little lopsided in what many considered to be a 2-on-1 tag team match against one candidate. This is the American people’s opportunity to have the candidates get to the point and talk about what matters.
VOTE NOW to take the Second Amendment question to the debate stage next Sunday and see where the candidates stand. One candidate’s name is already on one of the most egregious abrogations of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The other candidate’s official 2A platform plans to “defend the Second Amendment of our Constitution“, saying that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.” Trump’s specific plan includes “nominate United States Supreme Court justices that will abide by the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States,” “enforce the laws on the books,” “empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves,” and “defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”
Let’s put the question to them directly and see what they have to say about it. And while you’re at it, don’t forget to Stand and Fight for Second Amendment rights by joining or renewing your NRA membership today.
Branco: More Gun Laws
Another Mass shooting means more gun laws that don’t prevent more mass shootings.
Firearms Retailers, NSSF File Federal Suit against Attorney General Healey’s Overreaching ‘Enforcement Notice’
Four federally-licensed Massachusetts firearms retailers and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, today filed action in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to challenge on Constitutional grounds the “Enforcement Notice” issued by state Attorney General Maura Healey. The lawsuit states that her office overstepped its legal authority and deprived the retailers of their due process protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The action seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement.
The retailers are Pullman Arms Inc. of Worcester; Guns and Gear, LLC of Agawam; Paper City Firearms of Holyoke; and Grrr Gear of Orange.
“Attorney General Maura Healey’s actions were unconstitutional. Firearms retailers in Massachusetts cannot determine the meaning or scope of the Attorney General’s Enforcement Notice and subsequent explanations,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Because criminal penalties can result due to Attorney General Healey’s unilateral reinterpretation of a state statute done without administrative process or input from affected parties, her office exceeded its lawful authority and retailers were deprived of their due process protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
“In addition, if the Attorney General’s Enforcement Notice is understood as applying to all semi-automatic firearms, it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to keep and bear arms because it bans the manufacture, sale and possession of a broad range of firearms in common use by the citizens of Massachusetts,” Keane said. “Unfortunately, Attorney General Healy’s unconstitutional action has left us no other option than to seek relief from the courts.”
Representing NSSF and the retailers are the Boston-based law firm of Kenney and Sams, P.C., and Michael Sullivan of the Ashcroft Law Firm, who is a former United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and former Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Read the Civil Action filed today.
