I know! How dare I not be absolutely certain?
Pretty shoddily researched:
[ol]
[li]Roof used a Glock 41. Walmart doesn’t sell handguns to my knowledge. That’s certainly true of any one I’ve been to. So he wouldn’t have been able to obtain one at Walmart at all.[/li][li]It has nothing to do with “government computers being down.” It means that they did not return a reply on a name that they had initially noticed some discrepancies (which may result from someone with a similar name).[/li][li]Even so, there are many stores that do everything that complies with federal law including selling without a reply, but that doesn’t mean that they are those “sorts of stores.”[/li][li]Walmart “record[s] and store[s] the data from the sales”… just like any other FFL, unless there’s something extra that they do within the law. It’s not apparent.[/li][/ol]
First I think you are wrong and second, you are missing the point.
What makes you think that a jury (not a judge) is any better at determining the merits than a legislature.
Second, there were states that were legislating to make these otherwise frivolous cases non-frivolous by creating a cause of action.
So if the state of Texas created a cause of action that allowed people to successfully sue on behalf of aborted fetuses or allowed people who had abortions to sue for buyers remorse and effectively bankrupt anyone that has an abortion clinic in Texas, you think we should just let the courts figure it out on their own?
Pffft.
Have you simply ignored all the background? Are you simply ignoring that this was to prevent an abuse of the courts?
Because, in this case, I believe juries are less likely to be driven by the motivation of helping the bottom line of the gun industry. I’ll turn the question around on you – what makes you think that legislatures are better at determining the merits of lawsuits involving firearms than juries?
I’m not sure what it means to “make these otherwise frivolous cases non-frivolous by creating a cause of action”. Judges and juries decide whether lawsuits are frivolous or not (or they should).
As for abortion, if your hypothetical was possible and could harm abortion providers, pro-life groups would have already tried it. I find the idea that they’re somehow ‘not crazy enough’, or whatever, to do so, completely laughable. They would jump at any possibility within the law (including altering the law) to harm abortion providers.
It means that a state or local municipality passes laws that create a pathway for damages where previously there was none. In other words, on day 1 doing X is perfectly legal, like walking your dog on a public sidewalk. Then on day 2, after the new law is passed, if you walk your dog on a public sidewalk you are liable for the extra wear and tear you are causing to the ground and can be sued by every residence you pass on your walk.
An analogy would be SLAPP lawsuits. These are* “intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”* Do you think these are a good thing that should be encouraged, discouraged, or ignored?
From the wiki:
Are you opposed to the twenty eight states who have anti-SLAPP laws as well? Because it’s the same principle.
Surely you must recognize this as faulty reasoning. It presumes there are no new creative ways that pro-life groups could act to further their agenda. That everything possible has already been attempted. That is laughably bad reasoning.
If they only apply to a single industry, then I might oppose it. If they apply to everyone, then probably not.
Until and unless this happens, I don’t believe it’s a threat to abortion rights (and I still might not if courts just throw out the bad lawsuits), and I don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion.
Ok - so it’s not the issue of Congress or legislatures determining that certain actions are frivalous that you are opposed to? Because you’ve been harping on the frivolity determination being made at the the judge/jury level rather than congress, but here you are okay with it. And oh look, here’s another instance of congressional protection from strategic litigation. So will you drop or concede the issue of the judge/jury vs. congress?
So then about the singling out of an industry - we’ve already established that it’s not a single industry, it’s those that face particular threats, like a loss of vaccine manufacture which you are also okay with because of a compelling public interest. What you don’t seem to agree with is that gun makers were facing direct and particularized threats to their business. This wasn’t a coincidence either, this was a directed effort to litigate to cost them money, even in the face of losing legal actions. From the wiki:
So yes, the PLCAA protects one industry. It happens to be an industry that faced targeted threats that warranted targeted a response.
Sure, it’s not super relevant, other than to highlight the deficiency in your reasoning in drawing your conclusion that all possible efforts by pro-life groups have already been attempted.
There can be multiple reasons to oppose something. My feelings on judges/juries vs Congress is specific to firearms – when it comes to Civil Rights in southern states, I generally trust Congress far more than judges and juries.
I know that the gun industry faced targeted threats, but I disagree that they warranted the PLCAA for a couple of reasons – I don’t believe the threats would significantly harm the firearm industry; even if they significantly harmed the firearm industry I don’t believe there is a compelling public interest to protect them.
A vague threat to abortion rights based on an undefined law isn’t relevant. If you tell me the specific language of a hypothetical law that supposedly threatens abortion rights by helping potential litigants, then maybe I can provide my opinion.
How consistent of you.
So the harm wouldn’t be that bad, and even if it was, so what! On rare occasions, gun control folks are remarkably honest and you can see their actual goals. Hopefully you can understand when Congress and others take gun control proponents at their word when they say they want to bankrupt gun makers. If you think that’s okay, well, good luck I guess.
I think you’re missing the point here. I’m not arguing any relationship to abortion or other hypothetical laws related to abortion. I’m calling out your faulty reasoning that lead you to make this statement:
You are saying that there is no new hypothetical that is possible because if it were it would have already been done. That’s just poor logic and has nothing to do with abortion.
I’m consistently on the correct side. 
It’s possible that this was part of Congress’s motivation, but considering the coziness between those Congresspeople and the gun lobby, and since the PLCAA protects against far more than only those targeted lawsuits from cities that were intended to financially harm the gun industry, then I conclude that the main purpose of the PLCAA is to financially benefit the gun industry. If it were a law that were much smaller in scope to only guard against those specific targeted lawsuits from cities (and not from individuals), then it’s possible I would feel differently (or maybe not). If the law did not just involve a single industry, I might be more likely to feel differently.
It’s possible I made a logical error. If so, I apologize. I don’t believe it affects any of my points.
I’ll note that you said nothing about Damuri Ajashi’s logical error (or maybe just plain silliness) that the anti-gun folks are much crazier than the anti-abortion folks.