This, however, is an interesting claim:
"In fact, in recent years Congress has given special legal protections to gun companies who supply criminals."Really Daniel? And where is your evidence of this one? I've heard similar claims awhile ago from Lori Oniell and NGVAC from the ancient dismissed NAACP lawsuit. All evidence so conveniently sealed to the public.
IOW, Gross can in no way support his claim and I'm sure he knows it. The only reason is to make inflammatory statements in order to try and stir up their dwindling base and get some donations.
4 comments:
Well... I guess technically they have. "We won't prosecute you if you let these guns walk."
I guess that's TECHNICALLY special protection.
If I had to guess, he's referring to the indemnification law that says weapons manufacturers can't be sued because of how others use their products.
Specifically, I was thinking of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
wiki link
Merlin: "Specifically, I was thinking of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."
And he is saying this shortly after his own organization won a settlement for $600K from Kahr Arms- and his own head of legal said the PLCAA does not protect negligent or criminal manufacturers. Not only do they ignore the pro-gun side, but they even ignore themselves when it is convenient.
Post a Comment