Gun Control & RKBA

Would you care to explain how absent the PLCAA Bushmaster would be liable for the criminal misuse of its entirely legal, constitutionally protected, highly regulated product that was stolen from its lawful owner. As an attorney, I would be most interested in hearing a plausible products liability theory of how Bushmaster could be held liable under the current facts? Keep in mind that there were many cases before the PLCAA, although you will not like how they turned out. The very reason for the PLCAA was to circumvent frivolous lawsuits, and the law does not immunize the firearm industry from lawsuits involving true defective design and manufacture, and Remington is actually defending some at this time.

Do you realize that the rifle was fully compliant with Connecticut's assault weapons ban, did not malfunction, and Adam stole it from his mother, the lawful owner, after he killed her? Do you also realize that AR-15 rifles are the most popular type of civilian rifle in the USA and owned by millions of American without incident, and that ALL rifles account for a tiny fraction of ALL weapons used in crime.

Complaining about the PLCAA or Second Amendment really misses the fundamental point.

The only "privilege" on display is that of gun control advocates who believe they can abuse the courts, reinvent products liability jurisprudence and totally ignore the democratic process because they hate and fear a tool that is perfectly safe when not criminally misused.