Comments on: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/01/13/protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act-2/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:12:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/01/13/protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act-2/comment-page-1/#comment-213074 Xrlq Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:30:20 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=21308#comment-213074 Per the linked article: <blockquote>The appeals panel ruled 3-0 that an exception in the law applied because the city alleged the gun makers violated laws applying to the sale and marketing of firearms.</blockquote> Don't know about the merits of the suit, but if the allegation is correct, it sounds more like Indiana courts have never heard of the Protection of Unlawful Commerce of Arms Act. Which is and understandable oversight, given that the PUCAA doesn't, like, exist. Per the linked article:

The appeals panel ruled 3-0 that an exception in the law applied because the city alleged the gun makers violated laws applying to the sale and marketing of firearms.

Don’t know about the merits of the suit, but if the allegation is correct, it sounds more like Indiana courts have never heard of the Protection of Unlawful Commerce of Arms Act. Which is and understandable oversight, given that the PUCAA doesn’t, like, exist.

]]>