RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

[Volokh, Eugene]

   I appreciate that, but such federal immunities are often used in 
state court – see, e.g., 47 U.S.C. sec. 230, which provides Internet service 
providers with such immunity from liability (as a means of protecting free 
speech values), but doesn’t allow removal to federal court.  Congress can, I 
think, provide that state cases can be removed to federal court in some 
situations (I think there are some civil rights law examples, even as to 
criminal prosecutions, though they are rare).  But Congress did not so provide 
as to the PLCAA.

   Eugene

From: Don Kilmer [mailto:d...@dklawoffice.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu>; 'List Firearms Reg' 
<firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

What is troubling is that PLCAA was written and intended to be a species of 
“qualified immunity” for protecting citizens exercising their Second Amendments 
rights and to specifically protect those who supply the means of exercising 
that right.  Now of course qualified immunity is a judge made defense for 
police and other government officials that is made up out of whole cloth.  
Whereas the Second Amendment is an enumerated right and the PLCAA is COTUS 
exercising one of their  Article I powers.

This case bears watching.

Don Kilmer


From: 
firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
 [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:44 PM
To: List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

   Same reason that, for instance, state libel lawsuits stay in 
state court even when there’s a federal First Amendment defense.  “[I]t is now 
settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 
federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is 
anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that 
the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”  Caterpillar, Inc. v. 
Williams (1987), 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1945964317752725102

   Eugene

From: 
firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
 [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Olson, .
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Henry Schaffer <h...@unity.ncsu.edu<mailto:h...@unity.ncsu.edu>>
Cc: List Firearms Reg 
<firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington


The coverage and meaning of the PLCA is a FEDERAL question.  What is it doing 
in state court?
On Feb 22, 2016 18:19, "Henry Schaffer" 
<h...@unity.ncsu.edu<mailto:h...@unity.ncsu.edu>> wrote:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

All I know is that I heard this item today - and the emphasis was on how the 
*style* of the rifle indicated that Remington shouldn't have manufactured it 
for sale into the civilian market and therefore that the 2005 Protection of 
Lawful Commerce and Arms Act shouldn't apply.

I read a number of the comments and again the style was frequently mentioned.

The above has links to a number of news sources, I didn't see any to court 
documents.

--henry schaffer

___
To post, send message to 
Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

[Don Kilmer]

What is troubling is that PLCAA was written and intended to be a species of 
“qualified immunity” for protecting citizens exercising their Second Amendments 
rights and to specifically protect those who supply the means of exercising 
that right.  Now of course qualified immunity is a judge made defense for 
police and other government officials that is made up out of whole cloth.  
Whereas the Second Amendment is an enumerated right and the PLCAA is COTUS 
exercising one of their  Article I powers.  

 

This case bears watching. 

 

Don Kilmer

 

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:44 PM
To: List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

 

   Same reason that, for instance, state libel lawsuits stay in 
state court even when there’s a federal First Amendment defense.  “[I]t is now 
settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 
federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is 
anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that 
the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”  Caterpillar, Inc. v. 
Williams (1987), 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1945964317752725102

 

   Eugene

 

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Olson, .
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Henry Schaffer <h...@unity.ncsu.edu>
Cc: List Firearms Reg <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

 

The coverage and meaning of the PLCA is a FEDERAL question.  What is it doing 
in state court?

On Feb 22, 2016 18:19, "Henry Schaffer" <h...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

 

All I know is that I heard this item today - and the emphasis was on how the 
*style* of the rifle indicated that Remington shouldn't have manufactured it 
for sale into the civilian market and therefore that the 2005 Protection of 
Lawful Commerce and Arms Act shouldn't apply.

 

I read a number of the comments and again the style was frequently mentioned.

 

The above has links to a number of news sources, I didn't see any to court 
documents.

 

--henry schaffer


___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

[Volokh, Eugene]

   Same reason that, for instance, state libel lawsuits stay in 
state court even when there’s a federal First Amendment defense.  “[I]t is now 
settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 
federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is 
anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that 
the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”  Caterpillar, Inc. v. 
Williams (1987), 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1945964317752725102

   Eugene

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Olson, .
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Henry Schaffer <h...@unity.ncsu.edu>
Cc: List Firearms Reg <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington


The coverage and meaning of the PLCA is a FEDERAL question.  What is it doing 
in state court?
On Feb 22, 2016 18:19, "Henry Schaffer" 
<h...@unity.ncsu.edu<mailto:h...@unity.ncsu.edu>> wrote:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

All I know is that I heard this item today - and the emphasis was on how the 
*style* of the rifle indicated that Remington shouldn't have manufactured it 
for sale into the civilian market and therefore that the 2005 Protection of 
Lawful Commerce and Arms Act shouldn't apply.

I read a number of the comments and again the style was frequently mentioned.

The above has links to a number of news sources, I didn't see any to court 
documents.

--henry schaffer

___
To post, send message to 
Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

[Olson, .]

Style?  So if Angela wears a loose blue dress and 1" pumps, she is a
business woman.  But if she wears a tight red dress and 3" stilleto heels,
she is a whore?  Same woman, different cosmetics?

In all the years since Josh Sugerman invented "assault rifle" in 1989th ere
still has been ZERO drive-by bayonetings and no one has been beaten to
death by a pistol grip.
On Feb 22, 2016 18:19, "Henry Schaffer"  wrote:

>
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents
>
> All I know is that I heard this item today - and the emphasis was on how
> the *style* of the rifle indicated that Remington shouldn't have
> manufactured it for sale into the civilian market and therefore that the
> 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act shouldn't apply.
>
> I read a number of the comments and again the style was frequently
> mentioned.
>
> The above has links to a number of news sources, I didn't see any to court
> documents.
>
> --henry schaffer
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.