Anti-Second Amendment Lawfare
And State Abuse Of Process
Legal Troubles for U.S. Based Firearms Manufacturers
By Darwin Nercesian. Dec 26, 2024
Article Source
Rules for thee, but not for me. This should be the official motto of the left. As most Americans take care to stay on the right side of the law, even when we disagree or have our civil rights violated, conservatives remain at a constant disadvantage as anti-Second Amendment leftists spend a great deal of their time trying to circumvent the law. This phenomenon is not exclusive to individual rights, however, as these groups have long since used lawfare against the firearm industry, unabashedly declaring that if they cannot have their way legally, they'll simply bankrupt businesses through misuse of the judicial system. In the last week, attorneys general for Minnesota and New Jersey filed conspicuously similar lawsuits against firearms manufacturer Glock while also joining fourteen more attorneys general to collude in a multistate coalition aimed at attacking the entire firearms industry.
Let's start with actions filed against Glock. Minnesota and New Jersey claim the manufacturer's firearms are too easy to modify illegally, violating state law. The coordinated attack, undoubtedly bolstered by the Biden administration, disregards Glock's compliance with applicable laws, instead demanding the company abide by arbitrary laws requiring "reasonable controls" aimed at preventing misuse of its products. Under these strategically vague provisions, complying with regulations and protocols set by lawmakers is inadequate, holding firearms manufacturers to a standard by which they must have a crystal ball to anticipate how criminals may misuse their products and then institute measures to prevent criminal behavior.
How incredibly convenient for the state. Let me explain. Glock is not a regulatory or enforcement agency. They are a manufacturer subject to specific regulations applied to their industry by lawmakers. Anti-Second Amendment politicians, however, are trying to encumber the company with duties that fall under government purview, thus relieving themselves of the blame for any lack of enforcement and failure to secure their communities. Additionally, purposeful use of vague language, prohibited by the Constitution's "void for vagueness" doctrine, allows these seditious weasels to apply charges based on the whimsical flatulence of their imagination, even to the extent they do so retroactively. The legal principle behind the "void for vagueness" doctrine states that a law is considered invalid if written so vaguely that an average person cannot understand what specific conduct is prohibited, failing to provide fair warning, which would lead to violations of due process rights and arbitrary enforcement. Essentially, these attorneys general wish to impose ever-shifting goalposts regarding how they may burden the firearms industry without having to pass new laws or enforce existing criminal statutes.
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that leftists choose to trample this Constitutional doctrine as any part of our founding documents they can not pervert they outright disregard. Perhaps they would be more amenable to Congressional protections. I'm just kidding. They don't care about those laws either. In 2005, Congress enacted the bi-partisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) due to a need to reinforce well-established common law recognizing that companies conducting business under full legal compliance cannot be held responsible for outside criminal behavior. Not exclusive to any industry, this principle protects vehicle and kitchenware manufacturers, alcohol companies, and many others from exposure to vexatious litigation.
The reason behind Congresses specific codification for firearms companies stems from the fact that anti-Second Amendment activists felt they were above the law in their predatory quest to bankrupt the industry through the enormous expense of litigation, even if they could not obtain rulings in their favor. "A couple centuries of common law has established that manufacturers of goods are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their lawfully produced and sold products. But because that wasn't sufficient to keep the disingenuous legal arguments of gun grabbers at bay, congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to prevent this very sort of bad faith litigation - and the massive associated costs - from bankrupting the American gun industry," says Bill Sack, Director of Legal Operations for the Second Amendment Foundation.
It was only a matter of time, however, before the parasitic left would once again sidestep the law in favor of their anti-American agenda. In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy of 2012, with full-throated support from the Obama administration, plaintiffs sued Remington Arms under claims that the firearm manufacturer violated a state law prohibiting false advertising. This abomination of the legal process alleged that the company marketed its firearm with the knowledge it would appeal to a mass shooter. What's worse was the collusion of the Connecticut Supreme Court in allowing the lawsuit to proceed despite the admission that such a novel application of the law had not been proven. This failure of the judicial system led to a $73 million settlement with the families to avoid litigation expenses and the bankruptcy of a company deeply rooted in American firearms history.
In Chicago, a similar lawsuit is pending against Glock by the advocacy wing of Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that is so unconcerned about its defiance of Congress, disregard for the law, and abuse of process that it openly publishes a manual on how to sue companies within the firearms industry. While the methods and reasoning behind the suits are absurd on their face and lack legitimate legal standing, well-funded and seditious criminal groups like Everywown understand that it is impossible to predict how or by what means a criminal might abuse the design and intent of a weapon for illegal use. Another pending case currently before the United States Supreme Court is Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in which U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment groups are colluding with foreign officials to bring suit against American firearms manufacturers for violent acts committed by the very cartels that Mexico has allowed to thrive within their borders. Since we are playing fast and loose with the existing law, I wonder if any of these organizations aiding Mexico in this endeavor are in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. I'll bet you they are not.
"We're still seeing tortured legal premises that purport to fit within narrow exceptions of the PLCAA, like Mexico's suit blaming Smith & Wesson for drug cartel violence in Mexico, and now multiple states aiming to blame Glock for the criminal modification of their firearms by downstream end users," added Bill Sack. In addition to all of the lawfare outlined here, a coalition of sixteen attorneys general in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont recently formed a multistate alliance intending to coordinate civil liability laws against companies operating within the firearms industry. They seek to hold manufacturers, distributors, and sellers liable when their business practices result in unlawful sales, trafficking, or any outcomes that create a risk of public danger.
"Gun violence tears our communities apart and threatens Maryland families' safety. The companies that make up the firearms industry must do their part to help us address this life-threatening epidemic. This partnership ensures that if those companies prioritize profits over people, we will hold those businesses accountable," according to Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. Laws have long since been in place to prevent unlawful sales and trafficking of firearms, and neither manufacturers, distributors, or sellers are able to operate without detailed compliance with these regulations. The last time I recall such laws brazenly violated was under the authority of the Obama administration and then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder during Operation Fast and Furious, which took place out of the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This reckless endeavor saw more than 2,000 guns sold to criminals with ties to Mexican drug gangs, weapons ultimately used in crimes on both sides of the border, including the December 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Mexico did not pursue legal action for violence associated with the trafficked weapons, nor did Everytown for Gun Safety or any other of the usual suspects. No surprise.
With American citizens voting in favor of conservatives for the incoming 2025 government and electing a pro-Second Amendment majority, perhaps it's time to revisit the PLCAA and give it teeth that eliminate perceived loopholes and provide consequences for those who think the law does not apply to them. Automatically awarding legal fees to companies dragged into such lawsuits may be an excellent place to start. Requiring plaintiffs to secure a surety bond before a court will hear a case that challenges PLCAA protections could be another deterrent for those looking to disregard or circumvent the law. Sanctions and fines wouldn't be a bad idea either. We can not keep creating laws to reinforce those the left chooses to ignore because they will violate those as well, and the judicial system is not meant to be weaponized as a form of financial bullying, suing adversaries into destitution. "The point of all this gamesmanship is transparent: If they can't take away your guns at the individual level, they will try to take them away at the point of acquisition. Bankrupt the gun industry and make it hard for the average peaceable American to acquire their constitutionally protected arms," concluded Bill Sack.
