And once again, misdirection... [View all]

It never ceases to amaze me just how far the posters in the echo chamber that calls itself Gun Control Reform Activism will go to convince others of the sanctity of their cause. case in point: a post on May 25th ranting about Senate Bill S 397, passed to prevent gun manufacturers from being sued when their products are used by criminals in unlawful acts.

The post specifically discusses three cases. Of the three cases, only one had a true basis in fact, and that one case was actually decided in favor of the plaintiff and a judgment was entered against the defendant, Kahr arms. In the other two cases, one concerned a gun that was shoplifted (and the owners of the shop where it occurred lost their license because it was not an isolated incident), and the other was a case where the plaintiffs tried to sue the manufacturer because they claimed that the manufacturer should have known that the gun would be used by criminals. In this case, The California Supreme Court found against them - BEFORE S 397 was passed, I might add.Link provided:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17214429197270120189&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

I realize that the intent of the GCRA is to provide a "Safe Space" for those who believe that the Second Amendment is a useless appendage of the Constitution. However, it does their argument no good when the evidence they refer to is not applicable to the point they're trying to make.

Finally, anyone who actually reads the bill as passed with an open mind will be able to determine very quickly that manufacturers are not protected if they sell a defective firearm. Also, anyone who willfully sells a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe is going to commit a criminal act is open to being sued under this law. Link to actual text:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/397/text

In other words, the post I refer to is, while not quite a lie, very close to it. At the very least, it would appear to be a case of willful ignorance of the law.

And for those of you who wonder why I don't argue it in their forum, I will point out that anyone who tries to argue rarely has time to post more than 1 or 2 replies before they are banned from the group. Thus, there is no utility in following that path...