Podcast: The pivotal gun case likely going to the Supreme Court, explained

By Rachel del Guidice and Katrina Trinko | The Daily Signal

Could the manufacturer of the gun used in the tragic Sandy Hook shooting be sued? That’s what’s at stake in a new case that the Supreme Court has been asked to hear. Heritage Foundation legal expert Amy Swearer breaks down this case, plus what needs to be done to make our schools safe. Read the transcript, posted below, or listen to the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

  • Attorney General William Barr addresses “spying” on Trump campaign during hearing.
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders introduces “Medicare for All” legislation.
  • New Zealand’s parliament has voted 119-1 to change its gun laws.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.

Image courtesy of Public domain

6 thoughts on “Podcast: The pivotal gun case likely going to the Supreme Court, explained

  1. Speaking of the Supreme Court has anyone seen Bitter Ginsburg and is it true that
    larry king has been dressing in a robe walking around DC to pretend to be her? I would say
    she has used up all her “disability/medical time off” and We should have Pres Trump appoint
    a new Judge pronto, before summer. There are many black robe’s objections that need to be
    over turned.

    • Interesting to note that she and Scalia were, away from the bench, dinner date buddies. That was revealed when they were guests on a talk show–don’t ask me which one. Go figure…

  2. “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.”

    My bet would be it is stopped short of the SCOTUS however the Anti Constitution/American Left thinks that it will be overturned,good luck with that and to think people in hell want ice water.

    • If that were overturned, the precedent set would amount to declaring that not only are truly legally insane people not responsible for their actions (McNaughton Rule), no one in society has to bear the ultimate responsibility for their actions. That would attach to all behavior where someone is harmed. That is the progressives dream. Can’t see it happening. Actually, can’t see SCOTUS taking the case.

      • “Actually, can’t see SCOTUS taking the case.’

        Nether can I and for that matter any court and yet a supposed judge in Ct.is why we are here.
        As to the Left and mental stability,that’s a whole other subject.

  3. So let me see if I understand this, A firearm was used by a ” crazed perpetrator ” that is twenty years old, that stole the weapon from his mother, that he also shot and then goes to a school
    and shoots it up 20 kids in a gun free zone !!

    And it’s the manufacturer of the firearms fault ??, what about the perpetrator, sounds like a simple case liberal of anti-gun agenda. Hopefully, the SC will see this charade as what it is !!

    So when you’re caught driving under the influence and you kill someone who do you sue ??
    The car a manufacturer, the distillery ?? surely not the drunk driver if the above scenario is
    to be followed……..

    How about a teenager driving & texting kills someone who do you sue ??
    The car manufacturer or the phone company or their parents for lending the car surely not the
    little snowflake that was driving !!

    Put the blame where it belongs, on the Perpetrators………Liberals and their Agenda !!

Comments are closed.