Saturday, July 31, 2021

Lawfare

A couple of stories caught my eye this morning. I have previously stated that one of the most dangerous "backdoor" attacks on the 2nd Amendment will come via "lawfare" or using the courts to make it prohibitively expensive for manufacturers and importers to sell firearms to civilians (see: Death By A Thousand Cuts). It is part of the Biden regime plan to strip firearms manufacturers of liability protection to make it easier for people to sue gun makers when Laquandro shoots into a crowd. This pair of cases shows how broadly this lawfare can be waged:


In 2019 a bunch of people were shot in Dayton and the alleged gunman used an AR-15 with a crappy KCI (Kyung Chang Industry) 100 round magazine. According to the lawsuit, KCI shoulda known that their mags would be used in a mass shooting.....

“The risks to public safety of making and selling these to civilians outweigh any benefits. They are also not aware of any meaningful protocols, checks, or oversight KCI has in place to make sure its product isn’t used in a mass shooting. Therefore, it was foreseeable that, without sufficient safeguards, providing 100-round magazines to the general public would likely result in them being used in a mass shooting.”

That is like saying Ford doesn't have any meaningful checks or protocols to make sure that a drunk driver doesn't kill someone with an F-150 but look at the language they used and then read the second example:


This has to do with the Gilroy shooting, also in 2019. In this case the lawsuit is focused on Century Arms as the importer of the WASR-10, a Romanian AK, used in the shooting.  Century imports the AKs, modifies them to meet the import requirements and then distributes them to dealers. All legal. Here is the reasoning behind the lawsuit.

The survivors’ complaint accuses Century Arms of having “intentionally flooded” nearby states with the WASR-10s that were illegal to possess in California but could easily be transported there. The mass shooting, they allege, was a “foreseeable” and “probable” consequence of Century Arms’ failure to “adopt reasonable safeguards to prevent the diversion of firearms to dangerous parties.”

Notice the similarity in the language: "foreseeable", "likely/probable". It is up to a company to foresee any and all possible misuse of their products and it is always their fault if someone misuses their product, not the person who actually committed the crime.

Making guns, mags and ammo for the American market is probably quite a lucrative business for overseas manufacturers but not if they are endlessly fighting lawsuits. This is the design of lawfare, to starve the U.S. gun market by causing companies to seek a different way to make money rather than selling firearms to the civilian marketplace. 

Our rights are under assault in a myriad of ways and there isn't much we can do about it other than supporting groups like GOA and FPC and buying what we can, while we can.

8 comments:

  1. well, he did say start with the lawyers didn't he ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unrelated question sparked by your comment: I wonder if I have enough rope?

      Delete
  2. Turn around and sue the families.

    Given the level of crime in dayton ohio the victims should have foreseen the likely probable outcome of being a victim. The victims inability and unwillingness to be armed shows that they did not take reasonable precautions to ensure their own safety, as such their deaths were wholely forseable.

    Two can play lawfare.

    Exile1981

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the U.S. at least you won't find a single court that would entertain such a suit.

      Delete
  3. I would ask those people: What are reasonable safeguards that are 100% efficient and how do you foresee something. If you say it is foreseeable then please foresee the numbers of next fridays lottery for the next 200 years. And if you are right then we can continue the discussion. But if you cannot forsee then you are just letting of hot air without substance.
    Then they will have to admit: reasonable safeguards = total disarmarment = violation of 2AD
    Alex Lund

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't care about reason or fairness or justice, this is all about achieving an end goal of total disarmament.

      Delete
  4. Why, many gunmakers could have literally a million different companies. Keep closing them up yearly and open new ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe but I assume many of them will just find something else to make or move to strictly supply law enforcement and the military.

      Delete