Reason rules - for once
#1
10-14-16, 02:11 PM
#4
10-16-16, 11:51 AM
Just this past April, Bushy et Al asked for a summary dismissal of this case based on the grounds that this particular court did not have the authority to overrule the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903). Bellis disagreed and rejected the defendants' request, writing that, “The court concludes that any immunity that PLCAA may provide does not implicate this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Which left a lot of folks worried she was going to bring the smack-down on the manufacturers, but apparently she was only grandstanding.
The greater problem is, Bushy and Remington still had to hire lawyers to defend against this nonsense. Fortunately, they have deep pockets (and are well-insured), but before PLCAA was passed, the hoplophobes successfully conspired to bankrupt a number of smaller gun manufacturers. The irony is that they mostly killed off manufacturers who focused the low-end market (Charter Arms, [which was bankrupted and re-emerged as] Charter 2000 [which was bankrupted again], Lorcin, Davis, and others), and the market's loss of their products mostly affected the people who might be expected to need a firearm the worst, namely the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. The anti-gunners' game plan is to inflict the proverbial "death by a thousand cuts," so it isn't the outcome of the law suit that's key, it's engaging manufacturers in endlessly having to outlay capital to defend themselves that they're after. It's a shame the families of the victims can't see that they're being manipulated for political purposes by the people claiming to be acting in their interests.
One of the reasons the US has grown so litigious is that lawyers know there's a profit to be made in settling out of court for less than the defendant would spend defending themselves. All of which highlights the desperate need for tort reform: Loser Pays. Bring suit and lose and you have to pay the defendant's legal expenses. Which also would go a long way toward rehabilitating the health care industry, too, IMHO.
Allowing these people to sue Remington & Bushy in the first place makes as much sense as allowing the family of Mary-Jo Kopechne to sue Oldsmobile for selling Teddy Kennedy the car he drove off the Chappaquiddick bridge.
The greater problem is, Bushy and Remington still had to hire lawyers to defend against this nonsense. Fortunately, they have deep pockets (and are well-insured), but before PLCAA was passed, the hoplophobes successfully conspired to bankrupt a number of smaller gun manufacturers. The irony is that they mostly killed off manufacturers who focused the low-end market (Charter Arms, [which was bankrupted and re-emerged as] Charter 2000 [which was bankrupted again], Lorcin, Davis, and others), and the market's loss of their products mostly affected the people who might be expected to need a firearm the worst, namely the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. The anti-gunners' game plan is to inflict the proverbial "death by a thousand cuts," so it isn't the outcome of the law suit that's key, it's engaging manufacturers in endlessly having to outlay capital to defend themselves that they're after. It's a shame the families of the victims can't see that they're being manipulated for political purposes by the people claiming to be acting in their interests.
One of the reasons the US has grown so litigious is that lawyers know there's a profit to be made in settling out of court for less than the defendant would spend defending themselves. All of which highlights the desperate need for tort reform: Loser Pays. Bring suit and lose and you have to pay the defendant's legal expenses. Which also would go a long way toward rehabilitating the health care industry, too, IMHO.
Allowing these people to sue Remington & Bushy in the first place makes as much sense as allowing the family of Mary-Jo Kopechne to sue Oldsmobile for selling Teddy Kennedy the car he drove off the Chappaquiddick bridge.
