U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi, a Biden appointee, killed a new law that was widely celebrated by anti-gun Liberals and Democrats. The law would have allowed the state to shut down, and likely bankrupt, the firearms industry if a single gun were misused in a crime.
The Federal Judge said that he agreed with the gun industry that the New Jersey law was likely unconstitutional and granted the National Shooting Sports Foundation a preliminary injunction.
In a 20-page opinion, the Judge said that the New Jersey law signed last summer by Gov. Phil Murphy ignored a larger federal law (the PLCAA) that protects the makers of guns, and other items, from being dragged into court when somebody misuses their product.
Here’s a recap of Gov. Phil Murphy’s package of anti-gun measures:
Judge Quraishi said that the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gives immunity to gun and ammo makers and sellers against the types of public nuisance laws Murphy championed.
“The court is mindful that firearms are inherently dangerous and even more so in the wrong hands,” wrote the judge, “but it is also mindful that the PLCAA embodies Congress’s earnest effort to balance those dangers against the national interest in protecting access to firearms.”
Mark Oliva, the spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told a Washington Examiner reporter, “It’s a basic understanding of tort law. It’s the foundation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that anyone that criminally misuses a firearm or a product is responsible for the damages caused by their crime, not the person that lawfully made, lawfully sold that product.”
In an initial filing last November, the NSSF said the New Jersey law “is squarely preempted by federal law. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, several state and local governments sought to use novel applications of common law theories like negligence and nuisance to impose civil liability on manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition when third parties misused their products. Congress saw these lawsuits for what they were: unconstitutional efforts to stamp out lawful and constitutionally protected activity.”
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Originally from New Jersey.
Would rather have un-anesthetized anal fistula surgery than move back there.
Upon removal, said fistula would feel right at home there.
Fire arms have been manufactured for over 150 years, then some vote seeking politician decides this law might help him. If all gun manufacturers stopped today there would be enough to last another 150 years mostly in the hands of criminals who are affected by laws. Great Britain is a good example as the criminals still have guns and the Bobbies with their sticks have to call in the special ones with guns. It just another product that is being sold that can hurt someone, that is life. Criminals don’t change their behavior. They just select the tools. Underground machine shops can make guns anywhere, come on people it’s already been invented.
Anytime a liberal “democrat” says oh, no, we wont/cant use this law on anything other than gun manufacturers and sellers, is lieing, just waiting to , say, apply it to red ford suvs driven thru a crowd, or for an unregistered baseball bat used in a crime. is it sweden? the motorcyclists there are limited to 3/4 face helmets, because someone used a fullface as a mask in a robbery. Slippery slope and foot in the door, warnings are always valid. gabbin’ noisome on the left coast says he respects the 2A, but keeps trying to eradicate legal guns by increasing the illegal categories, and expanding the dont-you-dare-take-your-evil-gun-near-here-zones. This judge rightly quoted the correct laws, without making up his own.
Just think of the implications of this “law” and had it been found Constitutional. Think about how these people love to get a law into effect for one issue and then another group uses it for something else that they have a disagreement with. Think how this law could be twisted and used to bankrupt automobile manufacturers because someone stole a car and used that car in the commission of a crime. Kinda a long stretch I know but on September 9th 2001, how many people thought that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings?
It is good to see that not all judges are “bought and paid” partisan hacks. A fair, independent mined judge who believes in the Rule of Law. What an interesting concept. Were it to somehow catch on an old and tossed aside America just might blossom. Of course, the Left will challenge his ruling to hell and back, but it was a nice dream for the moment it lasted. But good on U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi, the “Patriot of the Day.”
If the law allowed gun manufacturers to be held liable for the misuse of guns, then manufacturers of hammers, cars, knives, ball bats, scissors, ropes, beer, cell phones, etc. would also be liable for the misuse of their products.
The summary of this article stated, “…anti-gun liberals and democrats.” The last two words were unnecessary as the terms are synonymous. Moderate democrats went extinct around the same time as cassette tapes.
Why is it that the firearms industry consistently gets special protection not afforded any other industry? How much blood money cancels out daily mass shootings?
Blue Dog: That industry gets special protection because they are providing the American public a product which the US Constitution specifically protects the right to keep and bear. Having a gun is my Constitutionally-protected RIGHT. Despite what you anti-gunners think, your “creative” attacks from the flanks of my rights won’t be tolerated. Look at it another way: Are you REALLY concerned about the carnage out there? Then let’s start suing Budweiser, Coors, Jack Daniels, and all the rest of those who distill, ferment, and brew alcoholic beverages. The carnage on our roads due to people drunk is far worse that than from gun violence. Heck, let’s sue Ford and Chrysler and GM out of business too — for the same carnage. Neither of THOSE industries has any constitutional protection. It’s not your right to drink alcohol, nor is it your right to own or drive a car. THOSE are privileges afforded by our society. My right to keep and bear arms is from God, and protected by our Constitution. THAT’s why this industry gets “special protections”.
For the same reason car manufacturers aren’t liable if you get drunk off your ass and kill someone with your car. Here’s a novel idea blue balls–target the user not the item. And we don’t need new laws, just a willingness to enforce existing ones!
Agreed , Jerry .
It’s the idiot , not the item .
If one does evil with a hammer , we do not scream
about suing Eastwing out of business .
Why do you need to specify he / him? LOLOLOL Groomer
Dude! You nailed on the head, it’s a “ groomer” damn, kudo’s for getting it correct.
Why do the makers of the failed experimental vaccines get immunity?
Stop grooming little kids with your he/him dribble too.
FJB and FBD
Ah, the daily BD shitpost.
Why do we not sue Seagram’s every time some inner city simian gets drunk and shoots up a liquor store?
Bloudouche it/clown why are you even here you anti gun zealot ? Go back to your Facebook weirdos and leave the important issues for the adults to discuss. Oh and GA nice censor job on previous comments that where printed and no magically gone,poof.
Do you work for Pfizer?