CA attempts to hold the gun industry liable

[ladder13]

Admin Edit-
The Banned Topics are still banned.
Stay OFF of them.



//////////////////////////////////////


original post:



Californians Will Be Able to Sue Those Responsible for Illegal Assault Weapons and Ghost Guns | California Governor


In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers and dealers from civil suits when crimes are committed using the guns they produce. AB 1594 utilizes an exemption to the federal statute that allows gun makers or sellers to be sued for violations of state laws concerning the sale or marketing of firearms.

As a joint author of AB 1594, I proudly stand with my colleague from San Francisco, Assemblymember Phil Ting, in thanking the Governor for signing this historic bill that challenges the stronghold of the gun lobby and brings justice to gun violence survivors, said Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson). Our message is clear: California will not turn a blind eye to the gun industrys direct responsibility for the killing machines they let flood our streets and murder our loved ones, day in and day out. Other industries and their products, even non-lethal, are held to this standard of accountability. Today, we stand together against the naysayers to create the type of parity that will save lives, setting a standard for others in the nation to follow.

[teletech]

The linked article says nothing about the gun industry but seems to target individuals. SB 1327. No mention of AB 1594 in the linked article.
As for SB 1327, SCOTUS did create this loophole so it's not surprising that people are taking advantage of it I guess.

As for AB 1594, information about the bill can be found here:
AB 1594 - California Assembly (20212022) - Open States

I haven't read the full text, but what I did read suggests it's got a strong anti-gun bias. Hardly surprising and unfortunate.

[Imissedagain]

Rumors are that they will add companies that lay asphalt on roadways and tire manufacturers because they aid in delivering firearms.

[robertrwalsh]

Gavin Newsom personally hates guns and hates people who own guns. The Democrat-Socialists who pretty much run CA government are happy to do everything they can to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding gun owners while encouraging policies to allow criminals to run amok. Even if they end up getting slapped down by the courts they don't care because it isn't their money paying for the lawyers, it is OUR (taxpayer) money.

[Drm50]

This will have to go to SCOTUS. Socialist politicians will not stop until the courts stop them. The most deadly killing machine we have are vehicles.
If certain politicians had their way they would sue God for creating rocks.

[teletech]

Originally Posted by Drm50

This will have to go to SCOTUS. Socialist politicians will not stop until the courts stop them. The most deadly killing machine we have are vehicles.
If certain politicians had their way they would sue God for creating rocks.

Since according to the CDC the leading cause of death in the United States is heart disease, perhaps some legislation to regulate hamburgers would be useful. Of course, for all those who thing the firearms industry has some lobbying might, they clearly have *not* met the beef industry.

[Beemer-mark]

Lawsuits and lawyers are the main avenue to get the progressive agenda passed when elected officials don't measure up. Not just gun banning but most everything. If you can make the cost of firearms and ammunition prohibitive then you've gone a long way to nullify the second amendment. I know the moderators are going to give me a hit on this one.

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

Originally Posted by Beemer-mark

Lawsuits and lawyers are the main avenue to get the progressive agenda passed when elected officials don't measure up. Not just gun banning but most everything. If you can make the cost of firearms and ammunition prohibitive then you've gone a long way to nullify the second amendment. I know the moderators are going to give me a hit on this one.

if smith and wesson stops doing business with california law enforcement agencies, they will come begging on their knees for what conditions we want.


UNFORTUNATELY gaston glock and those unscrupulous opportunists will take over.


the idea that we can force their hand by refusing to sell guns to california law enforcement only works if EVERY gun company agrees to do it.


gaston glock cares only about profit, so he would be fine with a monopoly. no one should buy a glock. stop supporting anti american companies like that

[scooter123]

There is a very simple means of putting a top to these over reaching laws. All it would take is for the gun manufacturers and ammunition makers to STOP shipping guns and ammo to the various law enforcement agencies.

Because it is an absolute certainty that at some point an ammunition maker will get sued for many many dollars because some Police Officer shot some Mama's Boy "who was turning his life around". BTW, Mama will also be suing Glock or Sig Sauer for supplying the handgun that Police Officer used.

[mistermills357]

Let them sue, they will break their teeth on the Second Amendment, more often than not. There are always enemies and haters of the strong hearted people, who will shoot the crooks out there.

[Racer X]

It sounds like just appeal until it ends up in a Federal court, and it gets tossed out, as Federal Law prohibits it.

[YkcorCal]

I just wish the Federal Government would ENFORCE the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the citizens of California in a TIMELY MANNER.

[Yaworski]

This bill, beginning on July 1, 2023, would establish a firearm industry standard of conduct, which would require a firearm industry member, as defined, to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls, as defined, take reasonable precautions to ensure that the member does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product, as defined, to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls, and adhere to specified laws pertaining to unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and false advertising. The bill would also prohibit a firearm industry member from manufacturing, marketing, importing, offering for wholesale sale, or offering for retail sale a firearm-related product that is abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety in California, as specified.

The first part is all handled by following the GCA '68. FFLs keep records and run background checks.

The second part is as objective as all get out. What is "abnormally dangerous"? I don't consider a hand grenade to be "abnormally dangerous" but a Californian may consider a deactivated 03 Springfield drill rifle to be dangerous.

[robertrwalsh]

In CA now some (many ?) gun stores no longer allow minors even into the store because a new law (one month old) creates a civil liability for exposing minors to harmful gun branded influences, like ball caps with COLT or RUGER embroidered on them. Really.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by mistermills357

Let them sue, they will break their teeth on the Second Amendment, more often than not. There are always enemies and haters of the strong hearted people, who will shoot the crooks out there.

Disagree. The culture is changing. Fast. More and more people will gladly hand over their rights in exchange for more extra hand-outs and leisure time.
The Second Amendment will eventually die the death of a thousand cuts, mainly at the hands of the courts.
I give it 10 years, tops.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by Racer X

It sounds like just appeal until it ends up in a Federal court, and it gets tossed out, as Federal Law prohibits it.

Wish that were true, but I just don’t see it.
CA will do what it wants. Period.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

Disagree. The culture is changing. Fast. More and more people will gladly hand over their rights in exchange for more extra hand-outs and leisure time.
The Second Amendment will eventually die the death of a thousand cuts, mainly at the hands of the courts.
I give it 10 years, tops.

I hope that you are wrong, I fear that you are correct.

[fordson]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

Disagree. The culture is changing. Fast. More and more people will gladly hand over their rights in exchange for more extra hand-outs and leisure time.
The Second Amendment will eventually die the death of a thousand cuts, mainly at the hands of the courts.
I give it 10 years, tops.

I’m afraid I have to agree with you. It might be as long as a generation before the numbers swing enough to make us and our influence on the political scene irrelevant and insignificant.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by YkcorCal

I just wish the Federal Government would ENFORCE the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the citizens of California in a TIMELY MANNER.

Hope you are not holding your breath on that one.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by Racer X

It sounds like just appeal until it ends up in a Federal court, and it gets tossed out, as Federal Law prohibits it.

But in the meantime the law goes into effect.
Time is on their side.
California does not see itself as bound by any federal law they don’t like, and neither do the majority of it’s citizens.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by scooter123

There is a very simple means of putting a top to these over reaching laws. All it would take is for the gun manufacturers and ammunition makers to STOP shipping guns and ammo to the various law enforcement agencies.

Because it is an absolute certainty that at some point an ammunition maker will get sued for many many dollars because some Police Officer shot some Mama's Boy "who was turning his life around". BTW, Mama will also be suing Glock or Sig Sauer for supplying the handgun that Police Officer used.

The state can always buy it through a third party.
And very few ammo companies are going to turn down business from any entity that has as much money to spend as CA does.