Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Supreme Court
The court has been asked to review the act. Now, let’s be frank for a bit. The only person at fault here is the parent who owned the gun for allowing his child access to the gun. The gun functioned as it was supposed to: the trigger was pulled and it went bang. That’s what they’re supposed to do.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:42 am
Not sure why Denniston thought this was newsworthy. People file crazy crap with the Supreme Court all the time. If the court grants cert, that will be big news. Until then I consider it a non-story.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am
I have defended products liability cases — nothing like this one though — and it looks to me like a “state of the art” argument. I agree with Xrlq that the Supreme Court is not going to waste its time over whether a jury should hear “magazine safeties save lives” vs. “a police officer should have a gun that can fire without a magazine if it needs to while changing magazines in the middle of a firefight, or if the magazine becomes released during a struggle with the suspect”.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:09 am
P.S. Especially after three courts have ruled on the issue.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
We still have (I’m not saying where) a Belgian surplus semi-auto my father got in 1969. I remember him taking a propane torch and file to it to disable both the magazine safety and the grip safety.