By Dean Weingarten
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
Both Remington and Glock have sued Healey in Suffolk Superior Court, arguing that she is abusing her authority by casting a broad net for documents, including those related to accidental discharges, past lawsuits, legal settlements, and product recalls.
Glock Inc.’s lawsuit asks the court to quash Healey’s inquiry.
The company, based in Smyrna, Ga., points to statements Healey has made calling gun violence a “public health crisis” and an “epidemic” to argue the “true purpose” of her investigation is “to harass an industry that the attorney general finds distasteful and to make political headlines by pursing members of the firearm industry.”
It is particularly weird considering that Glock pistols may only be legally sold to police in Massachusetts.
Healy misleads with lawerly parsing, spouting a Hillary Clinton talking point:
“This is the only product of its kind for which Congress has given the industry extensive freedom from liability,” she said at the White House. “That’s not right. The gun industry should be held to the same liability standards as the manufacturers and sellers of other consumer products.”
That may be correct, if parsed in a Clintonesqe manner. What other “product of its kind” exists except for firearms? Could it be crossbows? Blowguns? Taken that way, the statement becomes a truism.
Taken at face value, it simply is not correct. The protection that Congress has afforded the firearms industry is protection from lawsuit for actions of third parties that the companies have no control over. It is a wall that exists for all products, that gun haters are attempting to breach, at least at first, for firearms. From wikipedia:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both 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 in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
Used the way that Healy suggests, Nike could be sued for making shoes that criminals use to run with. Subaru could be sued for making a car used in a kidnapping.
Healy contends that her motivation for the investigation is irrelevant, that under Massachusetts law, she has the power to investigate any company she wants to. This is the very essence of tyranny. No company can be safe from such exercise of political power.
This is simply an extension of the lawfare attack by gun haters that prompted the federal protection in the first place. Those frivolous lawsuits were never expected to prevail in court. The stated purpose was to bankrupt firearms companies using the unlimited checkbook of taxpayers to file suit after suit, after suit, requiring an expensive defense against all, until the companies were bankrupted. From philly.com in 1998:
“The chances are maximized if enough cities file at one time,” Rendell said. “The sheer cost of defending these suits would be hard for the gun industry.”
The American governmental system was designed to be one in which checks and balances limited governmental power, to keep it from becoming tyrannical. The idea that a State official could require companies based in another state undergo great expense for a fishing expedition because a state official hated their product, would have been unthinkable. The idea that one state official could dictate policy for the nation would be abhorrent.
Perhaps it is time to act on what AG Healy suggests, and extend in law the protection of the PLCAA to all products, whether they be firearms or toasters.x
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
First of all she clearly IS making new law. For almost 2 decades NO other AG’s or law makers saw anything wrong with the laws as they were, until that fateful day when this evil, egotistical AG woke up one day and decided this was the day to pass new law, by going to the news paper, NOT the legislature, to pass the law. Then she receives a CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA and decides it does NOT apply to her, even though its in her name. She refuses to obey it and should be arrested and jailed till she complies. She needs… Read more »
Honestly, our Forefathers would have been shooting these people by now… Isn’t i about time to take them over by an armed insurgency, and bypass the unconstitutional methods these tyrants use??? Why should we allow these tyrants to use our constitution against us? These are issues that the constitution says are not up for discussion… “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…” is NOT “SHALL BE CONSIDERED…”…. I say it’s time to forcibly remove these communists, and try them without government interference, and hang them in the public square when convicted…. a few hundred armed patriots, and militia would put a stop to… Read more »
@Kim C, I agree about the timing thing, but how are you going to get a group big enough together, and feed, house, and transport them? And a plan, you have to have a plan. There are so many that need hanging that you’ll need a list, you will have to divide up the list into assignments. See how the magnitude of the problem complicates things!
Meh. Glock et. al. should refuse to sell to or service police departments in MA until Healy gives up her crusade.
Bingo. All the companies should refuse to sell any LEO agency in any state that has stupid laws.
This has been done before, and often with good effect. I remember when MagPull threatened to move their manufactory out of Colorado if they passed their standard capacity magazine ban. The legislators thought they were bluffing and passed the ban anyway. Guess what? Magpul did it, to the screams and whines of government. I believe it was Barrett which ended all sales to government in some state that banned their products, and I seem to remember a handgun manufacturer or two told California to either straighten up or they’d end all shipments to the state… including to all government and… Read more »
100% agree. Fortunately, there is a large enough military, police, and civilian market in the rest of the US so that Glock could easily survive without the Massachusetts market. It might even help Glock. In the ’90s, Smith & Wesson was owned by some British conglomerate (who clearly didn’t understand the Second Amendment). They were the only US firearm manufacturer to comply with one of Clinton’s idiotic suggested policies, resulting in a boycott by the US civilian market. They almost went bankrupt. In the end, the British owners ended up selling S&W to some US owners for about 10% of… Read more »
Agreed 100%. Such an action might even result in an increase in sales in the rest of the US.
Well Massachusetts I think it might be time for you all to get together and get her the hell out of office fast. She is not healthy for your state and it seems will she is trying to tear it apart. So come on you guys get with and get her out of there.
The voters have turned another foaming at the mouth, liberal gun hater loose on America. Destroy the Constitution at any cost is the progressive mantra.
It appears that AG’s around the country are abusing power. This one on her crusade and the WA state AG Ferguson trying to shove an “Assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban” through the legislature. Thankfully Ferguson is up for reelection this year so we have a chance to get rid of him. If not then our legislature will shut the bill down just like it has in previous years.