Why HRC Wants To Repeal The PLCAA

[45Doll 5,877]

First, let me say I'm posting this in the general area because it has information and pointers to facts I haven't heard discussed anywhere else. Please keep comments civil; this article deserves the widest possible distribution. I'm posting it so supplement public knowledge, not start a food fight.

 

It's well known that HRC wants to hold gun manufacturers responsible for firearms used in criminal acts. A popular supposition is that she wants to do this so that gun manufacturers can be sued out of existence. Voila: gun control.

 

That is apparently not the case. The real strategy is outlined in this article, which reviews the history of the lawsuit strategy as well as references from the Clinton Presidential Archives.

 

You may be surprised at the real strategy in play. Namely, doing an end-run around Congress.

 

[Ricky_Bobby 130]

I'm not surprised in the least that a run-around Congress is the goal - its basically what the executive branch has been doing for years

[fishnut 2,358]

So does this PLCAA also protect other legal company's such as tobacco product manufacturers, Alcohol manufacturers and car manufacturers ect?

[45Doll 5,877]

So does this PLCAA also protect other legal company's such as tobacco product manufacturers, Alcohol manufacturers and car manufacturers ect?

No. It's the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It protects firearms, nothing else.

[fishnut 2,358]

Ahhh I skipped over the "Arms" part. Lol well thanks for posting this, I knew nothing about it till now.

[SuRrEaLNJ 294]

this is beyond devious and draconian

[Zeke 5,504]

It's the DNC agenda.

[Kevin125 4,772]

They are crafty SOBs.

 

Be sued out of existence or stay in business....sort of...and abide by exactly what we tell you must do.

 

These people are dangerous.

 

Don't assume Bloomberg and his crowd will ignore this tactic.

 

There has to be a way to turn this on its head and prevent the Anti Gun crowd from ever getting that far. There needs to be a way to guarantee that any law or court order that in any way limits a citizen's access to any sort of firearm is violation of the 2nd Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

 

You can't force a company to agree to something that is illegal. Like saying..... "If you don't agree to make explosives for Hezbollah, the suit is going through." I think there's a chance the entity trying force that deal would be committing a crime.