[Sooth2222]

There is no basis for this lawsuit. None. The only way that this is going anywhere is with a psychotic judge (granted Obama has appointed plenty of crazy judges) who will be reversed on appeal. Since ammo went "bang", it didn't harm the buyer, it worked as advertised, there is no basis for this lawsuit.

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ... Introduced:

Feb 16, 2005 (109th Congress, 2005–2006)

Status:

Enacted — Signed by the President on Oct 26, 2005

Law:

This bill became the law numbered Pub.L. 109-92.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Summary

Library of Congress »

Section3 - Prohibits a qualified civil liability action from being brought in any state or federal court against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm, ammunition, or a component of ...

Side note: The sponsor of this bill was former Sen. Larry Craig, of Idaho and "wide stance" fame.

Side note 2: Many years BEFORE this bill was passed, stemming from the LIRR massacre, former Congresscritter Carolyn McCarthy sued Olin Corporation, the parent of Winchester Ammunition under products liability and negligence theories for their manufacture of the Black Talon bullets used by Colin Ferguson, the shooter. McCarthy's suit failed. Carolyn McCarthy retired because she contracted lung cancer, and in spite of having a 40+ year history of smoking, filed suit against asbestos manufacturers.

[Slings and Arrows]

There is no basis for this lawsuit. None.

I agree, but that's not the purpose of the lawsuits. The purpose is to burden the defendants with legal bills and time spent preparing their defenses while simultaneously gathering publicity for the plantiffs' political agenda. As I said before, lawfare.

[epow]

The only way that this is going anywhere is with a psychotic judge

As you say, the real reason for the suit isn't to win a high-dollar settlement, although they would like that of course, they're trying to bankrupt the online ammo sellers with lawyer fees and other legal expenses. Of course there isn't any justifiable reason for the lawsuit to begin with. Online buyers usually buy ammo in large quantities because (thanks to federal shipping regulations BTW) they get lower shipping costs per round than if they bought only a few hundred rounds per shipment.

Actually 4K rounds isn't an unusually large amount of ammo to buy at one purchase for people who do a lot of recreational shooting. When I lived in another state where I had access to a county owned shooting range that charged only $4 per day I did quite a bit of shooting myself, but not anywhere near as much as some of those other guys. I could only afford to shoot that much because I handloaded almost all my ammo and that kept the cost much, much lower.