Lehigh Law Prof Blasts PLCAA

George Nation, Professor of Law and Business doesn’t like the firearms industry:

“Traditionally, gun manufacturers have escaped responsibility when it comes to the criminal use of their products,” says Nation. “The legal system essentially presumes that criminal activity is not to be expected and that manufacturers have no control over the use of their products.”

“But with more than two million handgun-related crimes each year, and some gun advertising clearly aimed at criminal users, this traditional presumption is at odds with reality,” he adds.

Anyone able to grab a copy of this law review?  I’ve seen a lot of advertising for guns in gun magazeines, but not anywhere else.  I’d like to know what evidence Professor Nation has to make this claim.  My guess is he has none.

UPDATE: Trigger Finger provides some examples of what Professor Nation may be talking about.

4 thoughts on “Lehigh Law Prof Blasts PLCAA”

  1. There was an ad a few years ago by one manufacturer that bragged about a new finish that was resistant to fingerprints. The bigots jumped all over it claiming it was about making it difficult for the police to lift fingerprints rather than a corrosion resistance feature. The ad was quickly pulled.

  2. Guns that are “resistant to fingerprints” is one of my favorite gun debate topics.

    I start off by asking why there is no federal, state, or local law banning guns that are “resistant to fingerprints” and why gun control advocates are not lobbying for such a law.

    I ask why gun control advocates complain about ads for guns that are “resistant to fingerprints” yet almost never show an actual copy of the ad.

    I show the FULL phrase from the ad (” provides excellent resistance to fingerprints, sweat rust, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners, and all powder residues”) and ask what all that other stuff is about.

    I show ads for gun coatings and oils that also promise “resistance to fingerprints” and ask why they are not trying to ban those products.

  3. Substitute “automobile” for “gun” and see if it still makes sense, or just sounds like a justification for an ambulance-chasing lawyer.

Comments are closed.