“Uvalde shooting survivors’ families sue UPS, FedEx for shipping weapon used by gunman in school massacre,” The Texas Tribune reported Monday. “The lawsuit claims the companies shipped an enhanced trigger system that allowed the gunman to convert a firearm into a fully automatic or semi-automatic weapon.”
Forget for a moment that we need to guess what the paper is trying to say in the second sentence. There are bigger issues at play.
The blood dancing lawyers and Democrat-allied special interests behind this action, are ever creative in their schemes to separate their countrymen from their rights and to exploit the grief of survivors and family members with a complicit media. (In an earlier press release, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown bragged it “has partnered with Texas law firm LM Law Group [and] Romanucci & Blandin.” And their targets included gunmaker [Defense], gun store [Oasis Outback], and law enforcement.)
We also learn from the Tribune story that “This lawsuit was filed on the same day families of victims and survivors filed wrongful death lawsuits against Instagram parent company Meta, the maker of the Call of Duty video game ‘Activision…’” They’re coming after everybody they can, and not content with eviscerating the Second Amendment, their attack on “marketing” and other media takes aim at the First.
A natural question that comes to mind is how much of this should be denied in court on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grounds? And looking at the law, it’s fair for a layman to wonder if the shield covers all defendants (for everything but claims the killer was underaged).
“Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended,” the law states.
Don’t delivery companies fall under “businesses … engaged in … distribution” protections? Isn’t marketing included? It seems this is all well-financed harassment by special interests that can afford to put the squeeze on companies until they say “Uncle!” and settle – not that the prohibitionists with a goal of total domination ever will.
Let a parasite know it will be fed and it will return to suck out the rest. In this case, the intent could be to pressure delivery company risk managers into imposing new prohibitive restrictions on gun shipments. And until such times as these lawsuits are deemed frivolous and plaintiffs face personal consequences, the grabbers can afford to keep filing them.
At least so it would seem. Not being a lawyer, I’m constantly bewildered by legal contortions and the way cynical professionals gaslighting with weasel words can twist what ought to be plain meaning into interpretations that make my head hurt — including simple phrases, like “shall not be infringed…”
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
If it had been shipped usps they would know what’s in the box
They seem to open mine all the time.
I know Florida has something called “joint and several liability” AKA a deep pockets law.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=joint+and+several+liability
As an example consider a Tampa case in which two vehicles collided under a traffic light and then skidded diagonally across the intersection before colliding with an occupied telephone booth owned by GTE.
Because GTE was involved, although their fault if any was minimal, both drivers and the man making a call when the booth was hit recovered from GTE.
Perhaps Texas has a similar law?
the only problem with the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is that the judges refuse to enforce it. the lawsuit against Remington or their parent company should have been tossed out immediately. Yet it wasn’t.
Key term here: ‘knowingly.’ Did UPS or Fedex knowingly ship items in violation of the NFA? If not, maybe the postal service should be sued the next time someone sends anthrax through the mail to a politician.
This has gotten out of hand. The lawyers should be slapped down and pay $ for filing this and selling grieving families this line of crap.
need a law that allows personally suing lawyers for EVERYTHING they have if they file frivolous suits