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: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] 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: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Olson, .
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Henry Schaffer <[email protected]>
Cc: List Firearms Reg <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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.

Reply via email to