So I got up this morning to read a headline in my local paper The Courier Post. It reads "New Jersey Creates Office to Sue Gun Manufacturers." The article says it's not just manufacturers, but also gun dealers. So our Governor, Field Marshal Phil Murphy, intends to hire an army of storm trooper lawyers and investigators to sue the shit out of law abiding dealers and manufacturers.

I am not an attorney but I do hope that any company or dealer does use any and all avenues to not cooperate with these thugs. The article suggests that the Office is going to pursue civil settlements. Since it's not a criminal matter, I wonder to what extent the law would require manufacturers and dealers to cooperate with investigations.

https://www.courierpostonline....-office/65381925007/

How very…..fascist

New Jermany...

Civil courts can also just toss them as frivolous can they not?

We can hope I guess.

Since 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has provided near blanket immunity for gun makers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with their products. The law was passed after lawsuits by several cities tried to hold companies liable for gun violence.

EXCEPTIONS?
Yes. The PLCAA has several provisions that allow a company to be sued, including for claims a company has knowingly violated laws related to the marketing of the product related to the shooting.

The Connecticut Supreme Court said in 2019 that the federal law permitted a lawsuit by some of the families of the victims of a 2012 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The families sued Remington for violating the state's marketing law by allegedly promoting its Bushmaster rifle for criminal use.
Remington, which twice filed for bankruptcy during the case, agreed in February to pay the families $73 million, the first settlement of its kind.

Also in 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals said PLCAA did not prevent the city of Gary from pursuing a 1999 lawsuit against firearms manufacturers under the state's public nuisance laws. Nuisance laws can be used to hold a defendant liable for damage done to a public good, like community safety, and the city alleged the manufacturers knew of illegal handgun sales and failed to prevent them.
Two federal appeals courts, however, have ruled that public nuisance lawsuits are barred by PLCAA because they don't apply to the sale or marketing of firearms.

Somehow these idiots have decided that State Law supersedes Federal Law?

They better go back to law school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...h%20their%20products.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Only reason for this obviously is to try to bankrupt the gun manufacturers. I’m curious as to if the gun manufacturers can sue the governments that do this?

Gun manufacturers need to fight back - stop going after the agency contracts in these states. When the police agencies cannot get guns, perhaps the state will rethink things (or maybe they want that too).

These Progressives pass these knowingly unconstitutional laws. They stay on the books until they are overturned, which they know will happen. Phil Murphy is in a panic his gun bills 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 will all be overturned. Over 1 million carry permits are expected to be applied for. His 10 rd mag ban will be gone as well!
Remember this guy, he'll be running for President in 2024.