Lawsuits are still happening going back to 2016 when the Pulse nightclub shooting happened, killing 49 and injuring 53 people.

After a mass shooting occurs, it is safe to say everyone can wait for a lawsuit from the owners of the places the shooting takes place to those who play hero and save others lives.  Yes, even they get sued.

The only one who never gets sued is the manufacture of the gun, but don’t give Liberals any ideas.  Unfortunately, this is a world where everyone gets sue-happy for any incident, big or small.

For the Pulse nightclub, Officer Adam Gruler of the Orlando Police Department was the head of security the night of June 12, 2016, when the mass shooting took place.  He called for backup and exchanged gunfire with the active shooter.

He was praised from all over as he was labeled a hero for doing his job.  Two years later, he was sued for not doing enough to stop the shooter.  The city and thirty other police officers were sued as well for not entering the nightclub and neutralizing the situation fast enough.

The shootout lasted for three hours with the gunman before police were able to control the situation.  Survivors and family members of the deceased sued, Officer Gruler, the police, Facebook, Google, Twitter, the shooter’s employer, the shooter’s wife, and the owner of the nightclub.

The plaintiffs stated, “I know that she is not a bad person.  But in this day and age, with all the mass shootings, there should have been more security there. She should have known better.”

At the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, there was the mass shooting where up to date information has the lawsuits at over 450 victims are suing the Casino and resort where the shooting took place.

In 2018, four victims were killed at a Waffle House in Tennessee.  The victim’s families are suing the shooter’s father and the city for negligence.  The 911 dispatcher sent the emergency responders nine miles from where the shooting took place.  It was the wrong Waffle House.  All of these cases are still ongoing.

A gun policy expert and chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York and Cortland, Robert Spitzer, stated, “America is a litigious society.  But these aren’t frivolous lawsuits, they’re a result of the lack of legislation that might prevent mass shootings. The legal avenue becomes a way to try and at least hold people responsible when the political system has failed to a great degree to act.”

So with all these people who are getting sued like crazy, what is that keeps the gun manufacturers safe?  There is a law which protects these business owners who have absolutely nothing to do with the choices of the idiots who go and shoot up a place or kill people.

The law is formally known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).  It shields the firearm manufacturers and the ammunition manufacturers from being liable when crimes take place using the weapons made by them.

This is what Democratic Representative Adam Schiff and Senator Richard Blumenthal, also a Democrat are trying to shut down and repeal the law.  They, along with other Democrats, have been working to end this for years.

Every time there is a mass shooting, this repeal comes up, which never makes the news.  Should this law get repealed, it would open the door for the Democrats to come right in and sweep the house with our guns.

They tried it in 2013, 2016, and in 2017 after the Las Vegas shooting, but thankfully the bill died before it even came up for a vote.

The closest a case was ever brought up in court was the case for Christine Leinonen, who lost her son Christopher “Drew” Leinonen in the Pulse massacre.

She told the judge, “When I looked at my son’s murder, I had to look at what exactly happened and why did it happen and who had a duty to my son and who reneged on that duty.”

Sadly, everything and everybody gets the fingers pointed to when a tragic event of that capacity takes place.  They tried to sue the manufacturer of the gun but could only sue Google, Twitter, and Facebook.

The case was dismissed altogether by the judge due to, “The argument with the Internet was a weak argument, but possible.  The argument against the gun manufacturer was impossible.”