search
top

Gary Lawsuit Going Forward

Apparently no judge in Indiana is willing to rule that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act actually means something.

6 Responses to “Gary Lawsuit Going Forward”

  1. Mike w. says:

    The courts have no respect for the rule of law yet they expect others to abide by the law set down in their decisions. Incredible.

    Federal law clearly trumps state law here. Someone needs to come and put these idiots in their place.

  2. Xrlq says:

    I don’t know anything about the case, but the linked story says Gary alleges the guns were sold in violation of law. If that is correct (i.e., that Gary’s complaint is based on this allegation, not that the allegation is necessarily true), then doesn’t that easily put this case outside the ambit of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

  3. Sebastian says:

    Is that what they are actually claiming?

  4. Xrlq says:

    I haven’t read the actual pleadings, but that’s what the linked story says. And if they are saying that, the court has to accept the allegation as true, as they’re not ruling on the merits of the case, only on whether the case can proceed at all.

  5. Sebastian says:

    I see what you are saying. So does that mean that a way to get around PLCAA would be to make an accusation, no matter how dubious, that the law has been broken?

  6. Xrlq says:

    Depends on what you mean by “get around.” A dubious, unsupported allegation will get you past demurrer, which only asks if the allegation itself states facts that would give you a cause of action if proven, but it won’t get you past summary judgment unless you have at least some evidence to back up the assertion, and you certainly won’t get a verdict in your favor unless you can persuade the judge or jury that the weight of the evidence shows that a violation did in fact occur.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - [...] Via SIH. [...]
top