AG says Fed law does not protect manufacturers from state law.
- Thread starter swinokur
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Don't see that happening!
If there can not be 2A sanctuary states because of federal laws, then the anti-gun politicians can't have it their way either.
If there can not be 2A sanctuary states because of federal laws, then the anti-gun politicians can't have it their way either.
shootin the breeze
Missed it by that much
F them. I no longer care one whit what they say.
Brief~ "PLCAA thus does not grant broad immunity for gun manufacturers and sellers and does not stand in the way of actions, like this lawsuit, alleging that the defendants knowingly violated state or federal statutes applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms."
Knowing and violating Federal Statutes is the AG's MGA's and the Governor's job!
Don't YOU try it!
Knowing and violating Federal Statutes is the AG's MGA's and the Governor's job!
Don't YOU try it!
KingClown
SOmething Witty
Man the end was like a list of people competeing for Tyrant of the year maybe even the decade.
So I guess this shows the Antis' strategy for when Bruen is settled law for "Keep and Bear" rights. Pass state statutes that make it unprofitable, if not impossible, for firearms, accessory, and ammunition manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, by regulating commerce instead of limits on individuals.
Imagine a company needing to meet technical or marketing requirements of 15 different, probably intentionally conflicting, state statutes. The costs would put them out of business after a few suits.
Imagine a company needing to meet technical or marketing requirements of 15 different, probably intentionally conflicting, state statutes. The costs would put them out of business after a few suits.
Last edited:
There is a federal commerce clause for that too
Bullfrog
Ultimate Member
Didn't a judge just declare that California's law preventing the sale of new firearms because they don't meet nonsensical 'safety standards' like microstamping was in violation of the 2A?
Seems like your scenario in paragraph 2 would also fall into that category.
Yes, but IIRC the court's ruling was based on the overlapping regulations of one single state having the effect of a defacto ban on the sale of newly manufactured handguns at retail to individuals because there were no currently manufactured guns that met all the requirements.
It's the cumulative commercial effect of minor measures across multiple states I'm worried about here. None of the individual states' laws would create a high enough bar to be successfully challenged individually, but would create an unprofitable operating environment for manufacturers and retailers, causing them to leave the markets in the affected states. I know I'm doing a lousy job of explaining what I'm thinking, unfortunately.
Last edited:
Bullfrog
Ultimate Member
That makes sense.
No, I get it now. You explained it perfectly.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,309
NO the judge issued a Preliminary Injunction that will stay the enforcement of California's Handgun Roster starting in 14 days, however it is likely to be appealed to the 9th Circuit. At the moment if this is allowed to go into effect it will only effect California.
Slackdaddy
My pronouns: Iva/Bigun
- Jan 1, 2019
- 5,974
"Hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable when they violate the law"
So is this his promise to not sue gun manufactures when felon uses a gun,, and there was no law violated by the manufacture?
What "LAW" did Remington violate that got them sued ??
What "LAW" did Ruger violate that has them being sued ???
- Nov 11, 2009
- 31,018
The press release provides important information regarding possible destinations in escaping MD's tyranny:
"Joining Attorney General Brown in the brief are the Attorneys General of California,
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont."
Too bad about PA. They were on my short list, even if they elect dead people and aphasic stroke victims to public office.
The dormant commerce clause is colliding with state police powers.
I suspect or i am hopeful that National Pork Producers VS Ross (CA) will yield some insight into to power of states to influence commerce, products and production outside of their state boundaries.
States with oversized influence like CA can not continue to exert their influence or ideology outside of their state boundaries and crush economic activity outside of thier boundaries. I think this battle is one to come soon though it will not be resolved in the Ross case.
A state like CA should be free to influence or regulate pork production in its boundaries, but when it demands other states follow its ideology or else thier products cannot be sold inside its boundaries im hopeful that is where the dust settles.
Apply the same battle to Internal combustion engines. The Clean air act grants ca the authority to regulate emissions, but ill be interested if it grants them the power to ban and crush the national ICE economy? Apply the same to chainsaws, ATV's,, Generators, firearms, Leather products, pork..... the list is long of states wanting to ban what is not produced inside thier boundaries but by joining the united states they surrendered some of the power to engage in commerce based hostilities.....and the reasoning for those hostilities. i wonder how it will play out but i think these two battles will collide at SCOTUS in the next 5-10 years and yeild some very interesting limitations on states power?
Last edited:
owldo
Ultimate Member
Didn't we have a civil war that settled the question of who the preeminent authority is ? There is a Supremacy clause ... The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land."
Last edited:
Someone told him to say it.
Oh, I don't think the intent is to drive the large manufacturers who hold GOV contracts out of business. The goal is to end retail sales, and drive out of business those manufacturers and retailers dependent on sales and service to individuals.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 31,018
It's amusing to note that the plaintiffs drag Mexico into their complaint. Mexico is annoyed at the result of Operation Fast and Furious brought guns illegally into Mexico, causing damage and death to their citizens. Apparently the states involved want Mexico tp be able to sue manufacturers and gun dealers for damages.
Interestingly enough, the illegal sales were forced on the dealers by the Obama administration through the BATFE. While it's hard accurately to apportion blame, it does all seem to fall on the Federal government and its agents.
Perhaps Obama and AG Holder can be held accountable? Will Maryland attempt to sue them for damages? Is it even possible to do so? Sounds racist to me.
Where's the Clown Car? They need it to deliver this brief.
