Counterpoint: Jason Kander Campaign Against PLCAA Actually Targets Gun Rights

This week beloved politico and veteran housing activist Jason Kander shared the most important policy arguments in the aftermath of the deadly mass shooting following the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl victory parade.

Most of us know that Mr. Kander is an Afghanistan veteran, a former Missouri Secretary of State and also a former KCMO mayoral candidate who dropped of the race and shared his PTSD struggle with the nation. We note this only to frame this post . . . Everybody loves Jason Kander whilst TKC is mostly derided as a basement troglodyte who sometimes makes people laugh by way of inappropriate jokes whilst shelling out more free news than anybody in the metro.

Now, the crux of Jason Kander's argument was a call-to-action against The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act or PLCAA. 

Here's the basics of our respectful push back . . . 

Mr. Kander looks to dismiss any defense of the 2nd Amendment by advocating tort reform focused on consumer advocacy. 

His TikTok that we blogged earned hundreds of thousands of views and claimed that gun reform law was akin to class-action lawsuits against tobacco, tires or irresponsible trucking companies. 

Here's our problem with that argument: Cigarettes, bad tires and commercial trucking are not constitutional rights whereas the Supreme Court has interpreted/decreed/ruled/whatever that the 2nd Amendment gives every law-abiding American adult the right to own firearms.

Brief aside . . . He also claims that the gun industry is the only biz that has broad immunity. That's also incorrect. For now, thanks to Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, the social media world also enjoys some immunity from legal claims against their sites regarding nasty comments. There are legit arguments against that legislation but we merely mention it because legal immunity is not some rare, abstract concept but part of the American legal code. 

But more importantly . . . 

Jason Kander's arguments against PLCAA are aimed at "greedy corporations" who make guns but, if successful, the end result of his campaign would CERTAINLY impact 2nd Amendment rights, create a legal hellscape and infringe on the ability of law-abiding Americans to obtain a gun because all of the gun manufacturers would be sued out of business. Mr. Kander maintains that he doesn't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment but OBVIOUSLY he is targeting the American legal framework which serves to protect gun rights. 

We're posting this counterpoint that won't get much acknowledgment only because the response to Mr. Kander has been only adoring praise or hateful mischaracterization of his advocacy. 

Consider . . . 

It's easier to name-call and claim Jason Kander is a "gun grabber" or even worse online insults. 

In fact, Jason Kander's advocacy provides a valuable service . . . He is showing us exactly how progressive leaders and the Biden Administration have planned to attack gun rights through seemingly reasonable legal arguments delivered to an emotionally distressed electorate.   

The responsibility of gun owners is to examine this unpopular & controversial proposal and unpack it so that Jason Kander's well-deserved standing as beloved local veteran and all-around-nice-guy doesn't obscure the very real policy agenda he is putting forward. 

Again, to conclude, we think this is the crux of his policy argument and we'll post it, a noteworthy policy perspective to the contrary and then a link to his recent column . . .

"The gun lobby is fond of saying we don’t need any more gun laws. Fine, then let’s have one fewer. Repeal PLCCA and allow communities across this country to once again hold gun makers to the same standard as literally every other company selling a product. If we do that, they’ll have no choice but to reform themselves. They’ll finally roll out smart gun technology, for a start — and given the fact that the majority of gun crime is committed with stolen guns, that’d be a heckuva start."

Again, for people who want to learn more and debate this argument logically rather than with emotive please for drastic legal action, here's the other side of the story from a libertarian perceptive:  

"PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐​control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

"PLCAA is a common‐sense law. Product liability suits are usually focused on actual manufacturing defects."

Read more via www.TonysKansasCity.com link . . .

Jason Kander: Repealing this stupid law might prevent the next KC Chiefs rally shooting | Opinion

The corporate firearms lobby has a legal protection that no other manufacturer enjoys. Remove that, and the industry will reduce gun violence itself. | Opinion