Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Big_Mike

(509 posts)
12. Then under this theory, should not the automobile manufacturer be held liable for the use of their
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:34 PM
Mar 2016

product, as it was used to transport him to the shooting scene? He killed the owner of the weapons (his mother), loaded many other weapons into the car as I remember, and drove to Sandy Hook. Shouldn't the town of Sandy Hook be sued since it inadequately protected children required to be on their premises under law? One can keep coming up with other equally non-culpable entities to sue, and if it were here in CA, they likely would be sued, judging by the litigation going on here.

The reason the PLCAA was written was to protect manufacturers who have no control over someone using their products to harm others. There are criminal and civil laws that cover that part of the question.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»NY Times Editorial re PLC...»Reply #12