Good Lord, Illinois. You are so dumb and paranoid. The obsession with banning guns is as bad as the state’s obsession with protecting the ability to murder your unborn baby.
Gov. JB Pritzker signed a law that bans firearms advertising supposedly marketed to children and gun violence victims to sue gun manufacturers. I attached the bill at the bottom of the post.
The Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You can imagine the swear words that spilled from my mouth when reading about these laws. I am fuming.
The ruling comes on the heels of the Illinois Supreme Court ruling the state’s banning of “assault weapons” is constitutional. The Supreme Court better strike it down.
HB0218, also known as the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, is literally virtue signaling. The law makes it illegal “for any firearm industry member, through the sale, manufacturing, importing, or marketing of a firearm-related product to do any of the following,” including allowing people to sue the manufacturers:
(1) Knowingly create, maintain, or contribute to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public by conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all circumstances, including failing to establish or utilize reasonable controls. Reasonable controls include reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices that are designed to:
(A) prevent the sale or distribution of a firearm-related product to a straw purchaser, a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, or a person who the firearm industry member has reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk of using a firearm-related product to harm themselves or another individual or of possessing or using a firearm related product unlawfully;
(B) prevent the loss or theft of a firearm-related product from the firearm industry member; or
(C) comply with all provisions of applicable local, State, and federal law, and do not otherwise promote the unlawful manufacture, sale, possession, marketing, or use of a firearm-related product.
Has anyone ever seen gun advertisements aimed at children or those evil militias? If anyone has, then please let me know:
(i) uses caricatures that reasonably appear to be minors or cartoon characters;
(ii) offers brand name merchandise for minors, including, but not limited to, clothing, toys, games, or stuffed animals, that promotes a firearm industry member or firearm related product;
(iii) offers firearm-related products in sizes, colors, or designs that are specifically designed to be used by, or appeal to, minors;
(iv) is part of a marketing, advertising, or promotion campaign designed with the intent to appeal to minors;
(v) uses images or depictions of minors in advertising or marketing, or promotion materials, to depict the use of firearm-related products; or
(vi) is placed in a publication created for the purpose of reaching an audience that is predominantly composed of minors and not intended for a more general audience composed of adults.
You cannot advertise your product “in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals to engage in unlawful paramilitary or private militia activity in Illinois” who are not in an “authorized military organization.”
Do I need to repeat the Second Amendment again?
Pritzker signed the bill in Chicago during the Everytown for Gun Safety conference in front of those in Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action.
They will do anything to usurp the Second Amendment. It’s disgusting.
Pritzker boasted, “Today we are going to take yet another powerful step towards ending gun violence, and this time we’re going after the source.”
The source. Nope, it’s not the person who kills people. It’s anyone but them. Duh.
Law & Order is one of my favorite shows ever (it was my favorite until I watched The Wire) but I cannot watch the episode where Jack McCoy brings a gun manufacturer to court after someone killed a bunch of people at a park.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Can we sue car companies for crashes now?
People have been doing that for 50 years.
No, they haven’t. No one who gets hit by a Ferrari sues Ferrari for building a car that goes 3 times the speed limit – for no useful reason, and which is its main selling point.
Ah…Porsche was successfully sued. A drunk woman in a Turbo Porsche crashed going hell-bent in a neighborhood. It was the 911s fault as it was too powerful a car for a drunk person to handle. Also, a suit was filed but I do not know to outcome of the Paul Walker crash in a Porsche.
The concept was that the car was too powerful for the average person and a risk. Now, the first 911 Turbos were single stage versions… slow off the line but when they spooled up…. lightspeed!! Both the 911s and motorcycles should be driven slowly up to their performance level…. usually takes a good 6 months to get the feel.
Many “successful” suits against manufacturers and retailers are eventually tossed by higher courts. Trouble it, the public doesn’t generally hear of it. Remember the “too hot” coffee suit won against McDonalds? Overturned.
Juries tend to by sympathetic. Appeals courts not so much. People know coffee is hot, cars and guns are dangerous, knives are sharp (or, at least, should be), and stairs and swimming pools present unique hazards.
Only if a plaintiff can prove the car had a mechanical flaw which led to a car crash. Otherwise no, you cannot sue a car manufacturer for the negligence caused by the operator of the car.
The jockey William shoemaker quickly comes to mind. He sued ford when he lost control of his bronco II and became paralyzed when it rolled down an embankment. If memory serves correct, he also attempted to sue the California DOT for essentially designing a roadway not safe for drunken drivers
What is someone is shot unjustifiably by police? Does that include manufacturers of police guns?
If the automobile was faulty and the fault should have been resolved in design or once identified, yes. A firearm that randomly shoots would make the manufacturer liable. Otherwise using a tool in an illegal manner (such as hitting someone with a hammer) does not make the manufacturer liable.
At least in a sane society. I used to live in one of those.
It would be far more reasonable for victims to be able to sue the politicians.
“We have immunity and you don’t. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!”
Note the use of the weasel word “reasonable”, left conveniently undefined.
In any case, the blue cities like Chicago, East St. Louis etc. will STILL be crime-ridden pest-holes. But that doesn’t matter, does it? This is not about stopping crime and they’re not even being subtle about it any more.
Instantly void for vagueness.
They defined “reasonable controls” in the law. And it mostly echos existing state and federal laws and existing industry best practices.
What this law does is create an opening; it replaces objective reasonableness (i.e. what the law says) with subjective reasonableness (i.e. what a lawyer can plausibly allege before a judge or jury of non-industry lay-persons).
That difference is critical: There’s nothing new in the law’s “reasonable controls”, but if a plaintiff’s attorney can convince a judge or jury that a firearm manufacturer, distributor, or dealer didn’t do enough to prevent criminal misuse of their products — regardless of their compliance with state and federal laws and rules and industry best practices, or even if they objectively go above and beyond — then the business can be found liable.
We already know that for some people, no level of precaution is ever “enough”. And we know that those people serve on juries.
Given this new, shaky legal landscape, the least-risky move is to get out of the firearms business entirely …
… which is precisely the point of the law, PLCAA and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause be damned.
“Gov. JB Pritzker signed a law that bans firearms advertising supposedly marketed to children and gun violence victims to sue gun manufacturers.”
I guess the executive and his taxpayer-funded legal counsel along with these IL lawmakers and their taxpayer-funded legal counsel really didn’t mean it when they all took their oaths to the US and IL constitutions.
Illinois still sucks.
No, Illinois sucks even harder.
Touche.
Illinois has a lot of sucks company.
Knowingly create, maintain, or contribute to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public
Now do politicians with that same statement.
I’m certain Chicago’s usual suspects who turn the streets red with blood every weekend are heartened at the prospect to sue gun manufacturers. Ambulance chasers smile.
Lots of characters like Chump.
I’m laughing at those “reasonable controls” because they’re either already law or someone else’s responsibility (and can’t be made the responsibility of the “firearm industry member”).
Has anyone ever seen gun advertisements aimed at children…?
Yes, actually. There are lots of reasonable ads aimed at teaching or equipping kids to hunt, or offering branded hats and coats, etc. But, mostly the firearms brands stick to adult-sized materials.
unlawful paramilitary or private militia activity
Unless they’ve been convicted of being a “terrorist organization” there is no such thing as an “unlawful paramilitary”. (Also a good place to mention the evil UN “law” that prevents “private armies”. That’s done a lot of harm in the world, IMO.)
Do I need to repeat the Second Amendment again?
Pfft. How about the FIRST Amendment?
It seems like this law violates both the 1st and 2nd amendment’s.
I often find that if someone hates the 2nd Amendment, they usually hate the other nine as well. It just takes more to get them to admit it.
There are lots of reasonable ads aimed at teaching or equipping kids to hunt, or offering branded hats and coats, etc. But, mostly the firearms brands stick to adult-sized materials.
These laws aren’t just anti-gun. They’re meant to discourage, and thereby eventually ruin, sport hunting. If the only guns you’re “allowed” are for sport hunting, and interest in hunting wanes to the degree that resistance to legislation banning hunting is insufficient to prevent its passage, then there is suddenly no need for hunting guns either. Please bring them to your nearest police or sheriff department where you can exchange them for $25 gift certificates for Bud Light.
“If the only guns you’re “allowed” are for sport hunting, and interest in hunting wanes to the degree that resistance to legislation banning hunting is insufficient to prevent its passage, then there is suddenly no need for hunting guns either.”
Rebecca Peters of Australia, an attorney and a gun control advocate who is a visiting fellow in justice studies at the Soros Foundation in New York, has a message for all civilian gun owners, worldwide: “Find a new hobby.”
That gun ownership is not a “hobby” for many of us is absolutely incomprehensible to her.
Heck, how about the US Code that states any fighting age male who is not a member of the regular armed forces is thereby automatically a member of the ‘irregular militia’?
“National Guard”
/anti-gunner
“(ii) offers brand name merchandise for minors, including, but not limited to, clothing, toys, games, or stuffed animals, that promotes a firearm industry member or firearm related product;
(iii) offers firearm-related products in sizes, colors, or designs that are specifically designed to be used by, or appeal to, minors;”
So…it is illegal to sell T-shirts with gun company names in kid sizes.
Also, it would seem to be illegal to sell action figures with replicas of actual weapons.
sounds like a 1st amendment violation
So, no Kalashnikitty stuffed animals?
Also, it would seem to be illegal to sell action figures with replicas of actual weapons.
Probably not, as the law applies to “firearms industry member(s)” and not toy manufacturers.
But I can see a new market for a non-firearm industry member clothing manufacturer to make pro-gun clothing for kids (complete with firearm and ammo manufacturers’ logos), with a wink and a nod from the trademark holders who would be fairly (if not perfectly) happy to allow the infringement to occur so long as the sales are confined to the state of Illinois.
Whose “brand name”? That clause doesn’t say, and it doesn’t specify “firearm-related brand name merchandise”. Even if it did, the “including, but not limited to,” language opens up all kids of possibilities.
Hanes is a brand name. So are Nike, Adidas, Puma, Starbucks, and a million other companies with trademarked brands.
Under this language, selling or promoting any of them now opens up a business to liability if the product is used to further crime. If a gang-banger stomps someone’s head and then runs off while wearing Nike sneakers, the corporation bears responsibility.
I don’t think I’ve ever used a single gun advertisement to entice me to buy a gun.
I know, right? I want to buy the guns already, and ads seldom actually make me go “Ooooh, gotta have that.”
That’s what the youTube channel reviews are for.
“in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals to engage in unlawful paramilitary or private militia activity in Illinois” who are not in an “authorized military organization.”
Yes, there are so many of these responsible for the murder piles in Shitcago..
So seeing as how Federal law prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903 how does Gov. Pritzker believe that anyone will be able to sue a gun manufacturer under this new Illinois state law. It would have to be immediately dismissed as federal law does not allow such lawsuits in federal or state courts.
15 U.S. Code Chapter 105 – PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1051. They’ll be sued in state court and not federal court; the plaintiffs will claim jurisdiction, that federal laws don’t apply in state court. (Which isn’t true, but they only need one sympathetic judge to agree.)
2. Tell that to Remington Outdoor Company, who was sued by the Sandy Hook families, and that lawsuit was NOT immediately thrown out under the PLCAA. (As an aside, Remington settled and paid out a crap-ton of money, which just dumped blood in the water. The lawyers sense weakness and the sharks are now circling.)
3. Lawsuits are allowed against gun companies under the PLCAA in specifically-defined circumstances, one of which is inappropriate marketing and advertising. The CT court allowed the lawsuit against Remington to continue because the plaintiffs alleged that the Bushmaster brand (who made the rifle used at Sandy Hook), owned by Remington, inappropriately advertised its rifles in a way that would attract disaffected young men with violent fantasies, and convinced the judge that they could only prove it if the lawsuit went to discovery.
IOW, the courts allowed a fishing expedition into Remington’s and Bushmaster’s records. Like I said, it only takes one sympathetic judge to decide that the PLCAA’s protections don’t apply.
The only ads I have seen are of a father or mother teaching and/or shooting with their children. Which means under guidance. Imagine the heart attacks if these snowflakes saw the Mattel Shoot’n Shell pistols and rifles of the 1950’s!!! “Authorized military organization”…like Antifa and BLM?
If a BB gun falls under this law… then the Daisy is a BAD weapon… a gateway weapon to weapons of war. I more than despise these people and they should be shunned forever.
You can put your eye out with a Red Ryder
Daisy… right to daisy cutter, amiright?
Antifa is an idea, not an organization. So says every mainstream media outlet and Leftist politician in the country, so you know it must be true. [/sarcasm]
Relatedly, Oregon recently outlawed “paramilitary activities”, and defined “paramilitary” as a private organization with a command structure … which specifically exempts Antifa and BLM. Because “Antifa is an idea, not an organization,” so they have no defined command structure.
When houses started to be electrified many people refused to enter. They were convinced that the electricity would jump out of the wall and electrocute them. Freud was correct… fear of firearms is a mental condition. All of this to make guns, gun owners and manufactures evil and “pre-crime”. The very people banning these are the true culprits. Maybe we should call the state Elois-nois!
No, please STOP mentioning the Second Amendment. Seriously.
Most anti-gun laws are unconstitutional for reasons other than review under the 2nd Amendment. There’s plenty of great case law regarding other rights (such as the right to property) and limits on government authority (e.g., no ex post facto laws) that are equally applicable. Many people’s (and some judges’) eyes roll when they hear “2nd Amendment.” Hit them with something they don’t expect, for which there is clear (or at least solid) case law. E.g., Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Firearms are articles that move in interstate commerce. Congress has decided to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and sale of firearms, thus asserting it exclusive jurisdiction over them. All state firearms laws regulating the manufacture, distribution, and sale (and therefore “ownership”) of firearms intrude upon Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction over them. All such laws are void. (Furthermore, laws aimed at disrupting, discouraging, or otherwise interfering with the manufacture, distribution, and sales of firearms, such as those laying prohibitive taxes or creating undue product liability, could likewise be considered interference with Congress’ jurisdiction.)
For anyone who raises the “What about California’s auto emissions laws?” question, the answer is:
Congress gave CA a carve-out, allowing it to maintain its emissions laws when it (Congress) first asserted its jurisdiction over the matter. (Those of you who were paying attention may remember that President Trump threatened to withdraw the carve-out.) Arguably, the carve-out itself is unconstitutional, but its existence demonstrates that when Congress asserts it legislative jurisdiction over products moving in interstate commerce, that jurisdiction is complete and absolute, state laws notwithstanding (literally as well as figuratively).
On the one hand, every one of these laws should be declared unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment, so 2A should still be brought up in legal challenges.
On the other hand, there are enough judges that do not care about any of the Bill of Rights that we do need to get a bit more creative in our legal arguments; saying a law should be declared unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd Amendment, while true, is far too often not a good enough argument.
In a perfect world, claiming 2nd Amendment supremacy would be sufficient to strike down bad gun laws every time. But we do not live in a perfect world. We should be writing our legal challenges accordingly.
And really, why not? Every legal brief I’ve read takes a “shotgun” approach — they don’t hang it all on the 2nd Amendment; they argue their points from dozens of angles, on as many Constitutional principles as they can manage. If a judge doesn’t respect the 2nd Amendment, maybe he/she will respect the Commerce Clause, or the Supremacy Clause, or jurisdictional authority claims, or Militia Act, or PLCAA, or 1st Amendment parallels, or 4th Amendment parallels, or, or, or…. Throw it ALL in; even if the judge specifically doesn’t like the 2nd Amendment, something ought to resonate with him/her.
The objective is to get the bad law tossed. Period. Full stop. The principle on which it gets tossed is less important.
so dindoo (a minor) steals a colt and on an ordinary chicago day shoots doonuttin'(also a minor)–doonuttin’ can now sue COLT for injury / damages sustained from dindoo’s actions ?
right…….
Yep, because the “firearms industry” didn’t do enough to prevent the theft. Even if they sold it years ago — following all state and federal laws and industry best practices — they should have been more careful about who they sold it to.
Or shouldn’t have manufactured an item that would be such a high-value target for criminals in the first place.
Or something.
So if I’m reading this right, the Gov signed a vague bill that will encourage activist courts and prosecutors to ‘go after’ responsible law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers, tying them up in multiple lawsuits and criminal investigations while gang bangers and drug addicts continue to kill each other wholesale.
They are doing to firearms what their minions are doing to other businesses… turning the world into a desert. There is no “Joe Camel” equivalent for firearms. I haven’t seen gun ads promoting Chicago-land crime… all of that “advertisement” comes from Gangsta Rap and Black Redneck Culture.
Correct. Even if the courts do the right thing and throw the lawsuits out under the federal PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), it takes time and resources to send a legal team to petition the court to do that (which a sympathetic judge may or may not do).
The point is to bleed the industry through a thousand small cuts, and an occasional large one (see: Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit against Remington Outdoor Company).
“Lawfare” at its finest.
Gov. JB Pritzker looks like a Mob Boss to me. You do need to make sure the general population is unarmed so that the Mob Enforcers can carry out their duties.
He’s a victim of the food manufacturers…
Sullivan Act.
Court decisions just as bad…..
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1691211040858812421
If Kurt in the video doesn’t start at about the one minute mark just slide the bar to that time. Short, but true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaupkJPw8wE
pritzker now goes down in history among the likes of mao, stalin, pol pot and hitler to name just a few.
There are actually not just gun advertisements directed at children, but actual weapons designed specifically for children. And this is a good thing, and protected by both the first and second amendments.
This invalid legislation is obviously patterned after the laws targeting tobacco and alcohol advertising. But there’s a huge difference. First, neither tobacco nor alcohol are constitutional rights. Second, most people seem to agree that minors shouldn’t smoke or drink. But minors should shoot (under adult supervision), and weapons designed for children’s use are a long-standing American tradition. The JR-15 is just an example of that tradition. Banning such weapons violates the 2nd amendment, and banning advertising them violates the 1st amendment.
Why any firearm or accessory manufacturer still does business in IL, CA, NY, RI, CT, etc. is beyond comprehension. Now that IL will allow Glock to be sued if a perp steals a cop’s agency-issued sidearm and goes on a mass murder spree, why would Glock or any other company submit themselves to such a liability?
Don’t do business in the state.
Oh, so this is why they don’t care about black on black gun crime. Through the deaths of these victims they’ll be able to go after gun manufacturers. They know damn well that “gun play” will continue in this s**t hole, and before you know it Porky Pig will be able to bankrupt all gun manufacturers. Notice, not one word of locking up the criminal GUN USER! Meanwhile, the dead will still be dead, and the government will, as usual, use these victims to advance an agenda.
IL is being run by idiots. The affirmative action clown in the orange shirt-our AG Kwame Raoul- was called stupid and more recently by a federal judge for his actions re an abortion rights case.
One would think, after all this time that if you pass gun laws, only law-abiding citizens will obey them. Do they really think that criminals will stop buying guns or using them because of this nonsense? Why not outlaw poverty or hunger? That would do about as much as this stupid law will.
The majority of Illinois gun homicides are committed in Chicago.
The majority of gun homicides in Chicago are committed by blacks against other blacks, using handguns, not long guns.
Any state legislation that criminalizes gun use would necessarily have a ‘disparate impact’ on blacks.
Erronius
That second one is the only force that protects that first one.
“(1) Knowingly create, maintain, or contribute to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public by conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all circumstances, including failing to establish or utilize reasonable controls. Reasonable controls include reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices that are designed to:…”
If we applied this to the laws that unscrupulous politicians pass, then we could clean the sewers out. After all, their many “control” (not gun) laws actually “knowngly … contribute to a condition … that endangers” the citizens of Illinois. And they have definitely failed to “establish reasonable controls” on the *criminal element* that puts citizens at risk.
So let THAT lawsuit roll NOW!