Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Repeal of the PLCAA would potentially have even more devastating impacts than new federal prohibitions on the types of firearms Americans could own. That is because it would leave to the imaginations of thousands of greedy trial lawyers and activist judges reasons for why this or that type of firearm or ammunition is “too dangerous” to be available to the American public. These suits, moreover, would undoubtedly be underwritten by any number of billionaire activists, creating a litigation war chest that no single player in the gun industry could match.

NRA-ILA
January 25, 2021
Biden Plots Sneak Attack Against U.S. Firearms Industry
[It was because of the existential threat of lawsuits that 21 years ago Smith & Wesson agreed to not manufacture firearms with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, that dealers who sold their firearms would not sell normal capacity magazines or “semi-automatic assault weapons”, restrictions on sales at guns shows, and a host of other restrictions. Gun owners spontaneous boycotted S&W and they very nearly went bankrupt from the boycott.

In 2005 the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gave manufactures and dealers some relief from the fear of being crushed by lawsuits on one side and being boycotted into bankruptcy if they flinched in their stand against the forces of evil.

Now, the forces of evil have announced they are going to strip this protection and destroy the entire firearms supply chain.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

  1. I keep wondering if the skydiving industry solution could be used. There, a number of the major manufacturers are explicitly uninsured. (One of them has as its official company name “The Uninsured Relative Workshop”.) No insurance means no deep pockets; a liability lawsuit would have nothing to recover, except that the attacker might end up owning the company. That wouldn’t be much fun for its evil lawyers.

  2. I’m imagining Biden’s handlers, various co-conspirators in this interstate scheme to deprive civil rights. and their entire entourage of little authoritarian hangers-on just looking at the NRA-ILAS spokesman with unblinking eyes for a long moment, then saying,

    “Well… yeah.”

  3. Wasn’t the battle of Lexington and Concord about arms and ammunition, Supply?
    This is the hill to fight on. And not through the NRA.
    Anyone entertaining such actions against our arms industry is fair game. No bag limit, no tags required. No arms restrictions, All of USA is the open hunt zone.
    Anyone opposed to the these righteous laws deserves not the protection of ANY law. And by their own action have placed themselves outside the law.
    Anyone questioning your action should be given no more explanation than, BFYTW. (Insert quote from Shakespeare about lawyers).

    • First, it’s too late to put the genie back into the bottle. You’re out of the game because your post on an unencrypted web site is Prosecution Exhibit Number 1.

      Second, if you’d like to discuss the chain of legal reasoning that leads from “Conspiracy to infringe rights, elements of the crime and how applicable to observed behavior” (a federal felony) to “Use of force, when justified to prevent the commission of a felony” (according to applicable law in your state), that’s an entirely different matter.

      The boog has not started yet. As I have to admonish young Scouts occasionally, “Good enthusiasm; good energy. Apply it in a useful direction.”

      • Prosecution exhibit one? I’m old. And am never out of arm’s reach of a firearm. We ain’t going to court. Not over anything I’ve said or done.
        No need to argue with anyone. I’ve probably committed several federal felonies just trying to stretch my back out in the morning. So what?
        I spent almost 40 yrs. in hard labor, tax slave camp. They got their last klick out of Jr.. And ain’t no one around big enough to make me do no more.
        The Boog started when the SOCTUS said the constitution sez what I say it sez. Wrote by the people, for the people. But only 9 people in black robes can understand it?
        We can argue law all day long. But we’ve been way passed law since like 1900 or before?
        The only real question is just how much usurpation are you are willing to tolerate/live with? Cause that’s exactly how much their going to give you, then just a we bit more.
        Until they overstep. (Which they always do.)
        I’m just saying that them killing our arms supplies might qualify? Feds can FOC.

        • I’m not willing to put up with any usurpation.

          But I’m not going to give the usurpers ammunition.

          Last several months have been a long lesson in self discipline to not post things, even to the point of writing my intemperate words… then closing the browser.

  4. A practical solution is to enshrine the right to keep, manufacture, sell, trade and carry arms in the various state Constitutions. Most of these amendments make the use of state, county or city funds and “resources” illegal to use for the purpose of interference with the RKBA. I know Idaho and Alaska are two of a handful that have already done this. If Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Tennessee and a few more states adopt these amendments, it will serve to protect firearms manufacturing in those states, and further polarize our already divided nation. Bring on the national divorce!

    • As with legalization of federally “illegal” drugs, the states won’t protect you against federal incursions. It is one thing for a state legislature to say that the state will refrain from violating your rights (which they said in their state constitutions already, but lied), but it’s quite another for the state to raise an army and use it to provide protection against federally-perpetrated acts of aggression.

      This “chess game” of which we speak, which is the incremental (i.e. Progressive) legal wrangling against liberty, started long before any of us were born. It started, and was well underway, having gained momentum and having entrenched itself deep into every crevasse of our society, before your parents were born. It has been successful all along in building the precedents, institutions and “machinery” of control and oppression, and the necessary the mindsets within our culture, and it is proceeding apace.

      I see no evidence of any force on earth trying to stop it, MUCH less turn it back and erase it. As I said in a previous comment, there’s not even any noticeable movement event trying to identify it.

      And if we can’t identify it, or won’t identify it, there’s no point in opposing it. It is impossible to stand up to, much less overcome, that which we cannot, or will not, even identify. Furthermore, THAT would need to have been done decades ago in order to have a chance of stopping it though the system itself.

      Once the train is off the rails, and in freefall over a cliff, it’s a bit late to be arguing over whether or not to put on the brakes. It’s more like being down to the singular issue of bailing out and getting as far away from the inevitible wreckage as possible, and praying, in the dim hope of surviving the crash.

    • A.Rex, that doesn’t help, for several reasons.
      One is that most state governments don’t honor their constitutions any better than federal politicians, of all three branches, honor the Federal Constitution.
      A second problem is that, if the feds actually had the Constitutional authority to do something about our guns, state constitutions to the contrary would be no help due to the Supremacy clause. Of course, that’s hypothetical because in fact the Feds do not have constitutional authority over our guns, both due to the 2nd and 9th Amendments and due to the absence of any authority in Article 1 Section 8.
      Finally, I believe a lot of states, probably the majority, already have words “protecting” the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I know NH does, and it honors it reasonably well. I also believe CA does, and it doesn’t honor it worth a d***.

  5. So we already have judges ignoring this law and others without consequences. The rule of law is dead.

  6. Not sure why anyone would be surprised by this tactic. Lawfare….the use of the “legal” (sic) system as a weapon is an old and favorite tactic of the left. The goal is the total eradication of private firearm ownership AND the elimination of ALL weapons production except that specifically earmarked for the GOVERNMENT.
    This is not new nor news.

    • Correct. The essential question is why is the Right so bad at it. Firearms are probably the bright spot where we sometimes win. Everything else is just a chain of losses.

Comments are closed.