PLCAA
Quote:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was a law passed not too long ago that made gun manufacturers "immune" to liability lawsuits for firearms used in crimes/personal injuries, except for in the event that the weapon malfunctions (i.e., barrel explodes, etc.)
Yes, it is the PLCAA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Thank you. That's exactly what I was referring to
____________________________________________________
From what I see, the only argument to "design defect" is to prove that the weapon lacked a safety system, which if found to be true, Glock would be mandated to add to future models. However, I can see the opposing argument that even if there is no external safety on/off switch, the "no drop fire" safeties would still be a fair claim, considering that safety switches can be disabled and that it still takes someone to pull the trigger in order for the weapon to fire.
Now, every time I hear that a person is suing a gun manufacturer, the first thing that comes to my mind is that they either did something stupid and don't want to take responsibility for it, or they were injured by a random/uncontrollable event and they want reparation money. The issue I see is that so many lawyers/judges probably don't know most of the gun laws and half to refer to books during their research/inquiry of the case, and they seem to know little about commerce laws and end up having to make their own conclusions based on facts they aren't even aware of. If the law saws you can't sue a manufacturer because of a non-design-related injury, then why would the judge throw the case out, in which case the plaintiff will then argue that there was a design flaw, which goes back to my initial statement.
Sounds to me like they just want money and that's the end of it. They think the manufacturer should pay for the medical costs, and as always, emotional trauma. *rolls eyes*
