Posted on 03/20/2026 6:00:35 AM PDT by MtnClimber
In 2005, anti-liberty/gun cracktivists were having a hard time. They were losing at the ballot box and having little luck disarming the American public in state legislatures and the Congress. The public had long ago caught on to their common and never-ending lies, so they hit on a new strategy: lawfare. They would sue gun manufacturers for the third party, illegal and negligent acts of others who misused their lawful products. Sure, that flew in the face of basic principles of tort law—you can’t sue people for the acts of others about which they have no knowledge or ability to control—but GUNS!
Gun makers, compared to many other industries, make modest profits. The anti-gun strategy was to overwhelm them with so many lawsuits they’d be bankrupted, and it could have worked.
That year, Congress, by a broad and genuinely bipartisan margin, enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, the PLCAA, which is supposed to stop lawsuits against gun and ammo companies for the criminal misuse of their lawful, non-defective products. Even so, some leftist activist judges have allowed lawsuits that plainly violate the PLCAA and at the behest of his handlers, Joe Biden constantly claimed gun and ammo makers enjoyed immunity from lawsuits others did not.
That was a lie.
Covid vaccine makers, for example, were given total immunity. As with every industry, gun and ammo manufacturers may be sued for negligence, making faulty products or violating the law.
Now, anti-liberty/gun cracktivists have hit on another lawfare strategy:
The strategy is to enact what civilian disarmament advocates term “firearm industry responsibility” laws in anti-gun states. These laws impose a duty on members of the firearms industry to institute “reasonable controls” over the sale and distribution of their products
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
It seems that the PLCAA needs to have prison penalties added.
In addition to being a liar, Joe Biden is also a traitor to the United States of America.
So let’s assume the Leftists succeed in disarming all law abiding citizens of their guns. What happens next? Why the gun smugglers will just flood our border with guns. And I’m sure the government will be just as successful at curbing that as they were at preventing illegal aliens or illegal drugs from crossing the borders ... oh, wait ... I guess only gangbangers, criminals or illegal aliens will still have their guns.
The communists never stop, until they are stopped!
When the Left decides to enforce the law, they do it like 3rd world despots. Jail without bond, huge sentences, willing judges, putting political opponents in prison. They are basically installing martial law.
Jan 6 was a lesson to be taught to us.
In these cases, the process is the punishment - enough phony lawsuits are thrown at businesses, corporations or individuals the left don’t like with the purpose of tying them up in court for years and bankrupting them with long, drawn out, repeated lawsuits.
We have seen what happens next. Venezuela and Iran provide worked examples.
Criminal gangs are organized by the government into militias and given weapons. The militias are used to terrorize the law-abiding (and disarmed) citizens so they will obey all government orders. The most stubborn opponents of the government are hunted down and killed by the militia.
It is an unbreakable system, until some outside power comes in and breaks it.
The democrats have been trying to ban guns since 1934.
Began to make a big push against handguns in 1962,
made a grab for rifles in 1984,
Still trying to ban ANYTHING they can. Some of us kept lists.
The lies we have been told over the years...
1962 We ONLY want to register handguns. “Rifles will not be affected!”
1964, We ONLY want to register ALL firearms, not ban them.
1968 We ONLY want to register all guns, and ban the import of foreign Saturday Night Specials, and 5-shot bolt action army surplus rifles! (they got the ban).
1970, We ONLY want to ban small American handguns.” Rifles will not be affected!”
1976 We ONLY want to ban ALL handguns! “ Rifles will not be affected!”
1981, Actress Lee Grant on Good Morning America (ABC) screams...”THE NRA IS A RIFLE ORGANIZATION! THEY SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR HANDGUNS AND THEY CAN KEEP THEIR RIFLES!”
1984, they came for the rifles.
1988,Josh Sugarmann, of the National Council to Ban Handguns tells how to ban rifles.
“Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over
fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons
—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine
gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on
these weapons.”
– Josh Sugarmann
Gun owners now know that any time we negotiate with those who want to ban guns, we are up against a stacked deck.
The rat Communist USA party needs to be dealt with...big time.
Democrats invent new ways to get around the PLCAA
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Given the broad language of the seemingly ignored, 14th Amendment-related, punitive federal law that prohibits lawfare, also noting that the law doesn't exempt judges, it can be argued that elite, anti-2nd Amendment Democrats are unavoidably violating the PLCAA by implementing "legal" commerce-related requirements, regardless that they probably don't have the express constitutional power to burden manufacturers with such requirements imo.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
18U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom [all emphases added], willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. —18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
As a side note to Deprivation of rights under color of law, I haven't found examples of people convicted of violating the law. So at this time I question if the law is nothing more than uniparty smoke and mirrors intended to give citizens the misleading idea that lawmakers are actually concerned about such crime.
Getting back to Democratic attempts to unlawfully (imo) work around PLCAA in the context of 10th Amendment-protected manufacturing, there's arguably strong evidence of Democratic violations of the Depravation of rights law imo.
In fact, I've taken the liberty to make a minor change to the repealed 18th Amendment (18A) which effectively prohibited the consumption of alcoholic beverages by allowing the feds to prohibit the INTRAstate manufacture of such beverages to emphasize the point.
Based on 18A, Section 1, After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors firearms within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for firearms purposes is hereby prohibited.
From referenced article:
The strategy is to enact what civilian disarmament advocates term “firearm industry responsibility” laws in anti-gun states. These laws impose a duty on members of the firearms industry to institute “reasonable controls” [not] over the sale and distribution of their products
Note that the 65th Congress that drafted 18A evidently still respected that it needed to successfully petition the states to amend the Constitution to expand its Commerce Clause (CC) powers in order to prohibit the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages since the CC doesn't authorize Congress to stick is its big nose into INTRAstate commerce regardless what "hidden" CC powers FDR's activist Supreme Court majority justices found for Congress in that clause in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942.
Speaking of FDR since we're talking about Democratic gun controls:
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Getting back to Democrats making things difficult for gun manufacturers, consider the following third-party analysis of actual 18A, excerpted from Section 3 of Amdt18.4 Proposal and Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment:
On April 4, 1917, Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas introduced the joint resolution that would, as revised, become the Eighteenth Amendment. The Senate Judiciary Committee, to which the joint resolution was referred, reported it favorably. The committee’s report, relying on statements from prior Congresses, contended that the amendment should be submitted to the states because of popular support for Prohibition; the "evils" of alcoholic beverages; and the presumption that Congress lacked constitutional authority to regulate the intrastate manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages comprehensively in peacetime [emphasis added]. —Amdt18.4 Proposal and Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment
In other words, desperate Democrats first needed to successfully lead the states to amend the Constitution for a firearms version of 18A before they crippled the sale and distribution of firearms which, based on the reference article, they seem to have already done, arguably in violation of Deprivation of rights under color of law imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.