Some of us have been closely following challenges to A1765, New Jersey’s gun industry liability law. In my view, the law is facially invalid and preempted under federal law, and we may now find out after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit greenlit a challenge from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) yesterday. The court found that the NSSF has standing to bring the lawsuit, which could reach the United States Supreme Court.
In 2022, New Jersey enacted A1765 to expose “gun industry members”—gun sellers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, and marketers— to lawsuits as a “public nuisance.” This is a common effort among blue states to circumvent Second Amendment cases that reinforce the right to bear arms.
These laws are designed to achieve indirectly what the Court denied directly to the states: to effectively suppress the availability of guns. Indeed, the law effectively requires manufacturers to self-regulate after the state was prevented from direct regulations, mandating that these companies “shall establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun-related products.” Id. § 2C:58-35(a)(2).
The problem is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) which was passed to “prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” 15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(1).
PLCAA does have exceptions, including negligence per se. Id. § 7903(5)(A)(ii). The predicate exception requires proof that the manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product,” and that “the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” Id. § 7903(5)(A)(iii).
However, in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 299 (2025), the Supreme Court stressed that this exception applies only to those cases where the “plaintiff makes a plausible allegation that a gun manufacturer participated in a firearms violation as in something that it wished to bring about and sought to make succeed.” Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 299 (2025) (citation modified).
In the case, the Government of Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels under the predicate exception. It argued that the companies failed to exercise “reasonable care” to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, and so are responsible for the harms arising there from the weapons’ misuse as “willful accessories.” As some of us predicted, it failed spectacularly in a unanimous decision.
Nuisance is not negligence per se, and gun control advocates have tried to use product liability and nuisance laws to curtail gun sales for years as an alternative to legislative gun bans, which would be struck down. (There are a couple of gun ban cases going before the Court this term).
As previously discussed, public nuisance was originally addressed in England by criminal laws against such offenses as obstructing “the King’s highways.” It evolved into a common-law tort to address a broader range of “interests of the community at large—interests that were recognized as rights of the general public entitled to protection,” in the words of the American Law Institute’s Second Restatement of Torts (1965-79).
Those cases collapsed, and rightly so. In Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. (2004), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the claim while acknowledging that “the tragic personal consequences of gun violence are inestimable.” The court found no interference with a legal public right. It held that such theories “would permit nuisance liability to be imposed on an endless list of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of manufactured products.” The opioid claims are similar. Neither product was defective; both worked—all too well in some cases. The claims were based on third parties’ illegal or harmful use.
The same result appeared in nuisance claims involving lead paint. In State v. Lead Industries Association (2008), the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected an effort to use nuisance as a substitute for product liability. The court recognized the huge toll from the product while insisting that if it is defective, that should be addressed by product liability: “Our hearts go out to those children whose lives forever have been changed by the poisonous presence of lead. But, however grave the problem of lead poisoning is in Rhode Island, public nuisance law simply does not provide a remedy for this harm.”
Consideration of the merits of the challenge in this case, however, was stymied by that state challenging standing. First filed in February 2025, the lawsuit was dismissed because it was filed before the law was enforced against any industry member companies. The state, under New Jersey’s then-AG Matthew Platkin, sued several industry members, including GLOCK, Inc. NSSF promptly moved to reopen its lawsuit against New Jersey’s gun control law.
The Third Circuit held, “NSSF’s members’ intended actions are arguably precluded by A1765 and affected with constitutional interests. NSSF argues A1765 enforcement actions against its members for otherwise lawful commerce would be an attempt to ‘hold [its members] liable for the acts of third parties who use their legal products to commit heinous crimes.’”
Unless the standing decision is reversed, New Jersey will now face review (and a possible reckoning) over its latest effort to use civil liability as an alternative avenue for gun control.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
NJ’s A1765 is an attempt to “expose gun industry members [. . .] to lawsuits as a ‘public nuisance.’”
Here is how that law attempts to define “public nuisance:”
“’Public Nuisance’ means any condition which injures, endangers, or threatens to injure or endanger or contributes to the injury or endangerment of the health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience of others . . .” (A1765)
The hallmark of nonobjective law is a “definition” so overly broad that it can include any action or condition.
Consider just two simple examples:
The phrase: “Any condition that threatens to endanger the health of others.” An grocery aisle full of chips can “endanger the health” of those who overeat. So under that “definition,” Frito-Lay is a “public nuisance.”
The phrase: “And condition that threatens the convenience of others.” A long line at a fast food restaurant “threatens the convenience” of those in a hurry. So under that “definition,” any time you’re inconvenienced at McDonald’s, you have a cause of action.
A1765 is not a law. It is the legalized usurpation of rights, the use of lawfare to destroy, and a whim-driven license to loot wealth.
How stupid does one have to be to not understand it is a law titled A1765.
That’s right, go after the person.
Thanks. But just let the creature to stew in its own malice.
What other industries products will be targeted? Baseball bats, golf clubs, cutlery.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
From April, 2023:
Fox News Poll Finds Strong Support For Gun Regulations
A new Fox News Poll finds most voters favor the following proposals:
— Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (87%)
— Improving enforcement of existing gun laws (81%)
– Raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21 (81%)
— Requiring mental health checks on gun buyers (80%)
— Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others (80%)
— Requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases (77%)
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-limits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence
…………………………………..
A strong majority of Americans wants common sense gun regulations. They don’t want to hear some Federalist judge say we have to ‘deregulate’.
This is part of the reason some liberals want to pack the court and abolish the Senate. The courts and Senate keep holding their hands over their ears while saying, “No, no, we can’t!!”
“Common sense gun regulations” is the lefty buzzword for gun control. It’s a dead giveaway that you’re hearing a polemicist, not a rational person.
“Federalist judge” is the lefty buzzword for judges who actually obey the Constitution. Again, dead giveaway that you’re hearing a polemicist.
The Constitution is the document that says “no you can’t” deprive the people of their civil rights.
The Constitution does not make its guarantees subject to the whim of public opinion.
Get used to it bub, it’s not going away. Nor are the people who believe in the American system of government . . . based on that document.
#WeAreEstovir
Estovir, the Constitution is like the Bible. Any fool can seize on some passage to support whatever fringe views they have.
That is the comment of a truly ignorant and illiterate clown.
Number Six is right. That is the kind of ignorant garbage that someone with no education says.
#WeAreEstovir
seize on some passage to support whatever fringe views they have
So if someone “seizes” on the First Amendment to say that freedom of speech is protected, that’s now a “fringe” view promoted by a fool? I guess characterizing it as such might be useful for a commie tyrant like the anonymous moron above.
To protect from fringe fools, we need judges who protect the Constitution with respect and understand that their job is to ensure the federal government lives within the Constitution and that Article V is the means by which the Constitution is changed.
The problem is that the extreme right wing monkeys on SCOTUS, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, don’t share that view.
As devout Catholics, they all see there job as sticking it to the “godless” liberals by whatever means they can.
Wrong. As devout Catholics, they see their job as applying the laws and Constitution of the United States in a fair and just manner. To left wing-nuts doing so seems extreme because the left wing-nuts themselves are so extreme that actual obedience to the law is foreign to them. Thus, we get psychotic comments like the above.
Thomas famously told his law clerks the following soon after he was appointed:
“The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I’m going to make their lives miserable for 43 years.”
He was plainly explicit about his intentions.
I don’t find that off-the-cuff statement inappropriate if said in the proper context. Of course, he never said that, even though the thought is totally justified.
Why are you so stupid that you don’t realize that there is no record of him saying those words? That makes you and all the other anonymous trolls seem stupid.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out trying to produce the exact quote from Clarence Thomas’s lips or pen. You can’t do it, proving you are stupid.
Ignorance is your forte. I won’t say anything to dissuade you from showing everyone how foolish you are.
Ano
The problem is that the extreme right wing monkeys on SCOTUS, Thomas
_____________________________________
Ding, ding. The racist shows his face.
Typical of the left.
Um… Dustoff you are truly the dumbest MF the internet has ever encountered. Kill any Vietnamese lately?
Stupid anon
Meyer, there is something perversely ironic about Trump supporters lecturing on the constitution.
If one honestly cared about the constitution, they would never consider voting for Trump!
Nope ano
They only issue is you far-left wing libs.
Much like yourself.
The comment was about votes Dustoff. You can’t even follow a simple thread without losing track of the discussion. Gawd you a stoopid.
“Common sense” from the left, translates to “Un-Constitutional”.
One of their revised words.
It’s that word ‘unconstitutional’ that raises American eyebrows so they have to slip it to you real nice-like. I mean, who can argue with “common sense” right?
And the communists in Congress may pursue a constitutional amendment following the prescribed procedure.
Oh, and the Greeks created actual genuine democracy in 508 B.C. with severe restrictions on the vote to avoid mobocracy, ochlocracy, the “dictatorship of the majority,” the “dictatorship of the poor,” the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” aka the “hired help,” oh, and women—to avoid the hysteria and incoherence of women.
The reason that we have rights is specifically to BAR the majority from infringing on them.
While I question your polls – ultimately they do not matter.
We are not a democracy.
We are a constitutional republic and individuals have rights that can not be infringed on even if doing so is popular.
We are a democracy, as well as a republic. The founders repeatedly referred to the USA as both. The term “republic”, as the founders knew it, did not include elected government! Their prime examples of republics were Rome and Venice, neither of which were democratic at all, and that is certainly not what they intended. They intended a democratic republic, or a republican democracy. They said so, over and over. So denying either of these terms is wrong.
Milhouse.
When was the last time you heard the dem-o-rat say Republic?
They run from that word……
WTF, run from a word? Proof positive Dustoff that you are a certified moron? And he’s got two “collage” degrees.
@John Say, Saying ‘we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic’ is like saying ‘that is not a dog, it is a Golden Retriever.’ A constitutional republic is simply a form of representative democracy. In the United States, public policy is determined by representatives chosen by the citizens in democratic elections. The U.S. is not a direct democracy, but it is fundamentally a democratic nation.
If a policy or an infringement becomes popular enough, the majority can legally alter your rights. Through the amendment process outlined in Article V, a sufficient supermajority of the population can amend the Constitution to expand, restrict, or entirely eliminate existing rights—just as the 18th Amendment banned alcohol and the 21st Amendment brought it back. Popular opinion and polls ultimately do matter, because the Constitution itself is governed by the consent of the managed.
Individual rights can be infringed.
The important concept is AGW: Armed Government Worker. The founders knew the history of countries with AGWs and disarmed citizens hence the 2nd amendment. Control is supposed to start with controlling the AGWs which have become of my lifetime (78 yeas) more numerous, more militarized and more deadly. Liberals who don’t like law enforcement but are unarmed are effete.
Who the h– are you talking about? I work with fire, police and military vets. Are you labelling these great Americans who are defending YOUR freedom and security every day AGWs?? If so, you are a pathetic, paranoid ingrate. You think law enforcement and military are going to break in the direction of a U.S. dictator?…follow orders to destroy our freedom? See a psychiatrist, please. Or, simply have a cup of coffee with a cop.
“follow orders to destroy our freedom?”
– pbinca
Are you out of your —-ing mind? Freedom was destroyed a long, long time ago, and it all started with that —-ing Lincoln. American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Fed, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY “the Value of money,” “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and basic infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Try convincing black Americans that “freedom ended with Lincoln”. Go ahead. I want to see the reaction.
I’ve seen your racist definition of freedom, and draw great comfort over the fact that so few conservative Americans share it. You are a relic of the long-ago past.
Yes, firemen, policemen, military, IRS agents, any government worker who is armed as part of his job, is a inherently threat to our freedom, and the constitution was written for the specific purpose of controlling all such people. Government is like fire; a useful servant but a terrible master. We can’t live without either, but we can’t be careless with either.
Well said… pbinca
Under the Federal government’s supremacy due to interstate laws, the State cannot allow such a lawsuit to proceed.
However, they can ban the sale of firearms in their state. the FEDERAL gubmint cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What does the State constitution say?
By the action of SCOTUS The Bill of Rights applies to the states.
SCOTUS has applied 2A to the states. In 2010. States CANNOT Ban gun sales .
The states were free to ban guns for as long as they were free to ban newspapers or religions. There is no possible reading of the constitution that forbids them from banning newspapers or religions, but still allows them to ban guns.
From February 2026
Trump’s DOJ Highlights Guns Seized By ATF
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) today announced that since January 20, 2025, it has seized 36,277 illegal crime guns and 2,317,999 rounds of ammunition from prohibited persons, gang members, and suppliers for transnational criminal organizations.
4,359 of these seized firearms were bound for Mexico, where they would have been used by violent drug cartels and gangs. 648,975 rounds of the seized ammunition were bound for Mexico, which averages to over 1,600 rounds per day.
Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, ATF has led an aggressive nationwide effort to dismantle the domestic and international networks that arm violent criminals.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/atf-seizes-thousands-illegal-firearms-bound-cartels-mexico
From July 2025:
Trump Cuts ATF Budget By 25%
The Trump administration has set its sights on restructuring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, including plans to loosen gun regulations and significantly reduce its budget.
The proposed regulatory changes are part of a broader effort to transform the ATF. The Department of Justice, which oversees the agency, has proposed a 25% cut to its budget in fiscal year 2026. That includes the loss of more than 500 investigators, who conduct inspections of federally licensed gun dealers. The Justice Department’s own analysis says the cut would reduce the agency’s ability to regulate the firearms and explosives industries by around 40%.
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5440343/trump-administration-atf-jobs-gun-restrictions
……………………………………..
First we have a DOJ announcement from February boasting about all the guns and ammo the ATF has seized from a wide spectrum of criminals. Said announcement notes that significant quantities were bound for Mexico. Sounds impressive, huh?
But just one year earlier, Trump cut ATF’s budget by 25%. So are those quantities of seized firearms smaller than they might have been had ATF’s budget not been cut?
Perhaps those seized firearms were just the tip of an iceberg?
Should have been cut by 100%.
Like Social Security and Medicare, which enjoy NO legal basis in the Constitution and are precluded by Article 1, Section 8, that confers on Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” not individual, specific, or particular welfare, favor, or charity, understanding that general welfare consists of security and basic infrastructure, such as police, fire, water, roads, electricity, post office, and other commodities and services that are necessary for ALL to WELL PROCEED (i.e. general welfare).
Sure but when the feds start taxing me for my necessarily local fire department I’m going to have a problem with whatever method they choose to redistribute that money BACK to my necessarily local fire department.
Amen. And Lon Horiuchi should be recalled from his furlough under an altered identity, and indicted and tried for the crimes he committed while working for that organization.
But just one year earlier, Trump cut ATF’s budget by 25%. So are those quantities of seized firearms smaller than they might have been had ATF’s budget not been cut?
No, they are not. The ATF still has more than enough money to continue pursuing such actual criminal activities. Far more than enough. If it restricted itself to that it would be left with a huge surplus at the end of each year. Most of what the ATF does, however, is itself criminal — and a far greater threat to our freedoms than the crimes it suppresses in others.
We’d be far better off without the ATF at all, including all the good it does, than we are with it. The Trump administration is still trying to see whether the ATF can be reformed rather than abolished. Time will tell whether that’s possible.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote a wonderful column, which in part is an explanation of Mohamed Atta. It is long and well worth the read but I will quote just a short portion from the piece.
What Mohamed Atta Was Trying to Tell Us
…
Nothing in his circumstances compelled him to dwell on death. Yet he gave detailed instructions for the handling of his corpse. “I don’t want any women to go to my grave at all during my funeral or on any occasion thereafter,” he wrote. He did not want a pregnant woman, or “a person who is not clean,” to come and say goodbye. The man who washed his body should wear gloves so as not to touch his genitals. He was to be wrapped in three white pieces of unadorned cloth, laid on his right side facing Mecca, and buried “next to good Muslims.” His money was to be divided “according to the Muslim religion as almighty God has asked us to do.”
There is no political program and no mention of foreign policy or economic grievances in the document. There is only a young Muslim man, in a German apartment, arranging to sacrifice his life to Allah in the confidence that Allah will reward his martyrdom in the life to come. The will was witnessed by fellow believers at the al-Quds mosque, where Atta prayed in Arabic, grew his beard, and where, four years later, he would meet the men he would die with.
The document is among the most neglected pieces of evidence from Sept. 11 because it contradicts the explanations of the attack that most Western commentators preferred. Atta was not poor. He was not radicalized by drone strikes that had not yet happened, nor by American support for Israel. He was not in any formal or organizational sense an “Islamist.” Rather, he had an uncompromising and militant commitment to Islam that he was ready to die for.
Yet for 25 years Western elites repeatedly insisted that men like Atta must have been driven by something other than the culture and the faith that provided him with a lens through which his actions seemed both sensible and necessary. After 9/11, intellectuals and policymakers asked “what went wrong?” as though the source of Atta’s animus toward the West was shrouded in some deep mystery. In the Western experience, men had not killed other men over religious questions en masse since the end of the great religious wars of the 17th century. Culture, a term that was once understood to encompass a great many facets of human identity, experience, and belonging—religion included—had also been ruled out. Saying that cultural differences exist and should be respected was a foundation of the multicultural order; the idea that some cultures might lead people to murder each other, for reasons that do not appear in the Western rationalist list of sane causes, struck many Western liberals as too close to racism to bother arguing the point. ….
Meyer, in the aftermath of 9/11 there were numerous stories in mainstream media about Wahabism and how it was a puritanical form of Islam. Anyone paying attention then knew that Wahabism was the issue and that Saudi Arabia was essentially exporting Wahabism to Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the motivations behind 911 shouldn’t have been a ‘mystery’.
That is quite true, but it is more than Wahhabism and Salafism, which represent branches of Sunni theology. Many branches move in the same direction, and we have to consider Shia Muslims as well as other branches and sub-branches of the religion.
My supervisor at the time, a liberal Democrat, blamed it on poverty in the Arab world. That seemed to simplistic to me. There is a tendency among American liberals to assume the same political context and sensibilities that exist here apply everywhere. It’s of a piece with how they impose 21st century standards and sensibilities (such as feminism) on events from many centuries ago. It doesn’t ring true. It’s lazy, and too easy. But it relieves one of the burden of thinking and reading.
#WeAreEstovir
“My life in this world is temporary. My real life is the eternal life promised by God. I have been chosen to sacrifice myself in a holy struggle against the enemies of Islam. Therefore, what you regard as murder and suicide, I regard as obedience, sacrifice and martyrdom—and I expect God to reward me for it.”
“You think you possess the power. You think your civilization is permanent. I am willing to die to demonstrate that my God, my faith and my cause are more powerful than your civilization.”
Nutjob Extraordinaire!
Aren’t They All?
Mohamed Atta
Please show us all at your first opportunity. We don’t believe you.
What you are doing is proving the point, perhaps without recognizing it.
S. Meyer;
“In the Western experience, men had not killed other men over religious questions en masse since the end of the great religious wars of the 17th century.”
Except for Christian Nazis exterminating millions of Jews, solely for being Jewish. It’s tougher to recall when Christians are the mass murderers.
What are you talking about? The Nazis were NOT Christians! They hated Christianity and everything it represents. They were atheists, and against all religions, but among religions they regarded Christianity as a Jewish religion and therefore particularly despicable. They preferred Islam, which although a superstition like all religions, was at least a “manly” superstition, and not tainted by Judaism.
Nazis “were atheists, and against all religions . . .”
That is a grossly inaccurate description of the Nazi philosophy. They were as mystical as any religion.
See, for example, “Positive Christianity” — a mystical ideology promoted by Hitler, and institutionalized during his dictatorial reign.
@Milhouse, sorry, but your view is incorrect.
The Nazi regime aggressively rejected atheism. Adolf Hitler explicitly associated atheism with ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ and banned atheist organizations in Germany shortly after taking power in 1933. The official Nazi Party Platform of 1920 explicitly stated that the party stood for ‘Positive Christianity’. The vast majority of the German population and Nazi party members remained registered, tax-paying Protestants or Catholics throughout the Third Reich.
Rather than trying to destroy Christianity as a whole, the Nazis attempted to hijack it. Through a movement called ‘Positive Christianity,’ they tried to purge the faith of its Jewish roots by rejecting the Old Testament, rewriting the New Testament, and falsely claiming that Jesus was an ‘Aryan’ warrior who fought against Jews. They created a unified Protestant Reich Church to align Christian theology directly with Nazi racial ideology.
The Nazi party particularly detested the meekness of Christianity’s compassion towards the poor and the weak. They had almost an identical view that is closer to today’s fundamental Christian views.
S. Meyer. Not political?
“I have been chosen to sacrifice myself in a holy struggle against the enemies of Islam”
The West has been the major corrupter of Islam by dumping trillions of dollars into the hands of a select few who use that money to ensure those at the top retain control of the country and of the major religious centers.
Then are auto manufacturers liable for accidents caused by drunk drivers, speeders and stop sign runners? Are knife manufacturers liable if you stab someone to death? It seems a very slippery slope.How about Stanley tools if someone is beat to death with their hammer?
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
No. It’s Congress.
Anonymous,
Yeah … right … why does a civil society need a judiciary? Our Founding Fathers intended Chuck Schumer (with his megaphone) to be the sole arbiter of the Constitution, right?
If gun manufacturers can be held legally liable for a legally purchased weapon then why wouldn’t a judge or prosecutor that fails to enforce the laws not also be liable when their activism results in harm to others?
EightBall,
Whoa! That is quite a bit of logic there! Be interesting to see if Republicans offered to allow these un-Constitutional laws to pass in exchange for holding judges or prosecutors that that fails to enforce the laws not also be liable when their activism results in harm to others.
Could be fun to see! 🙂
#WeAreEstovir
“If gun manufacturers can be held legally liable for a legally purchased weapon then why wouldn’t a judge or prosecutor that fails to enforce the laws not also be liable when their activism results in harm to others?”
I know you know the answer, but it is because of the doctrine of qualified immunity for government employees, a concept that has been widely abused for a very long time, and should be summarily ended.
Place bit the dust. Anyone listen to talk radio? It’s down to someone reading a textbook over air.
Adieu, best of everything
I think the anonymous troll is under the weather. His trolling comments are stupider than usual today, and that’s saying something!
A Proud American,
Oh, the annony never fails to amaze us with his lower elevator level IQ comments.
How marvelous!
#WeAreEstovir
This is a cycle in which all players benefit. Blue state politicians enact blatantly unconstitutional gun laws. They garner political brownie points for re-election. They blame the courts when the legislation is predictably struck down. Voters keep voting for them. The nation as a whole gets court precedent upholding basic civil rights as expressly guaranteed by the Constitution.
#WeAreEstovir
OldManFromKS,
Exactly.
As the good professor has pointed out, they just keep strengthening the 2ndA and the reason why we need the Constitution.
Although I would not put it past the far illiberal leftists to some at it with some anti-gun slant, for the children or some nonsense like that.
#WeAreEstovir
Should of been, “Although I would not put it past the far illiberal leftists to come at the 2ndA with some anti-gun slant, for the children or some nonsense like that.”
We need to allow guns to be carried in schools from an early age. 10 years old is sufficient to handle a revolver or a small semiautomatic pistol. Any child not in a family who can afford the holster and gun will be given one at the school. They don’t need lunch programs, but they do need to appreciate what the Constitution guarantees them.
When players who should never have been allowed at the table win, we all lose…
I was just thinking the same thing.
Please make more crazy lefty laws that always end up securing 2A rights with improved clarity.
I wonder if all the lefty losing does more to demoralize, or more to enrage them?