New law in South Carolina will help pregnant women at work

YORK COUNTY, S.C. — A new law going into effect in South Carolina will help protect pregnant women on the job. Governor Henry McMaster recently signed the Pregnancy Accommodations Act which ensures no woman with child in the Palmetto State has to choose …

Read more from New Law…

Louisiana Governor Signs Knife Law Reform, Removes Switchblade Ban

Louisiana Governor Signs Knife Law Reform, Removes Switchblade Ban
Louisiana Governor Signs Knife Law Reform, Removes Switchblade Ban

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- On 25 May, 2018, Governor Edwards of Louisiana signed HB 892 into law. The bill now becomes ACT 341, which reforms Louisiana knife law, removing a 1950’s era ban on switchblades.  From wafb.com:

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) –

On Friday, May 25, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed 79 bills into new laws.

The bills he signed are as follows:

(snip)

ACT 341 – HB 892 Provides relative to the illegal carrying of certain knives.

The wording of HB892, now ACT 341, is as shown at legiscan.   From legiscan.com:

(4)(a)
The manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use intentional concealment on one’s person of any switchblade knife, spring knife, or other knife or similar instrument having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch, or similar contrivance located on the handle. Section 2. R.S. 14:95(J) is hereby repealed in its entirety.


CODING:
Words in struck through type are deletions from existing law; words underscored are additions.

The legislative history of R.S 14:95 indicates the switchblade ban was put into place in 1956. The banning of switchblade knives was based on a propaganda campaign initiated in New York by Congressman James J. Delaney. Congressman Delany made a name for himself by pushing emotional appeals to ban switchblade knives, claiming that they were only useful for crime. Other New York politicians joined him. The same arguments used by the knife banners are in use today by current activists pushing for a disarmed population. From 1958, arguing for a national ban on switchblade knives, Senator Frank J. Pino:

New York State Senator Frank J. Pino of Brooklyn had a glib rebuttal for the sportsman angle. He testified, “Actually, these knives are, I would say inherently dangerous, they have only one purpose. They are just deadly. They are lethal weapons, and they are suited for crime, that is all they are suited for. So that the sportsmen really have nothing substantial to complain about. But they do complain. It is an emotional thing with them, somehow.

Sound familar? It should. Substitute “assault weapons” for knives and the same paragraph would fit in perfectly with the emotional arguments being pushed today to ban semi-automatic rifles. In 1958, there were plenty of semi-automatic rifles available. They could be freely ordered through the mail. So could anti-aircraft cannon, anti-tank cannon, and ammunition. But crime was very low, and the understanding of the limits of the Commerce clause was still relatively strong.

It was understood that the federal govenment could not regulate commerce inside of state borders.  That is why federal legislation was restricted to banning importation of switchblade knives and banning interstate transportation of switchblade knives. Even the interstate transport ban was recognized by the Department of Justice as problematic, and expansive of federal power. From knife-expert.com:

Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers wrote, “The Department of Justice is unable to recommend enactment of this legislation. 

 “The committee may wish to consider whether the problem to which this legislation is addressed is one properly within the police powers of the various States. As you know, Federal law now prohibits the interstate transportation of certain inherently dangerous articles such as dynamite and nitroglycerin on carriers also transporting passengers. The instant measures would extend the doctrine upon which such prohibitions are based by prohibiting the transportation of a single item which is not inherently dangerous but requires the introduction of a wrongful human element to make it so. “Switchblade knives in the hands of criminals are, of course, potentially dangerous weapons. However, since they serve useful and even essential purposes in the hands of persons such as sportsmen, shipping clerks, and others engaged in lawful pursuits, the committee may deem it preferable that they be regulated at the State rather than the Federal level.”

In the end, the power of yellow journalism to create crises where none existed, triumphed. Congress passed the federal ban, following the example of several states. A pattern for the passage of national laws based on an emotion driven, media favored agenda, had been created.

Louisiana has joined the trend of reversing that injustice. The number of states that still ban switchblade knives is growing smaller and smaller.

It has taken six decades, likely confiscations of millions of knives from people who never harmed anyone; thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives ruined by arrests and convictions that served no useful purpose.

It is an object lesson in bad legislation.

Switchblade
Switchblade

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The post Louisiana Governor Signs Knife Law Reform, Removes Switchblade Ban appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

Read more from AmmoLand…

Connecticut Bans ‘Rate Of Fire Enhancements’ On Firearms

Ways to shoot your gun faster have been around for ages now. They’re nothing new, and prior to Las Vegas, they were almost never used in a crime of any sort, so far as I’ve been able to tell. They were toys slapped onto guns to amuse people as they wasted ammo at a range day and not much else.

In Connecticut, though, they’re now history.

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat with a long history of advocating gun control measures, signed a law on Thursday outlawing a variety of firearm accessories.

The proposal, HB 5542, creates a new felony for the sale and possession of a “rate of fire enhancement” as defined under the new law. It was approved last month in the state House 114-35 and the Senate 26-10, with Dems pushing hard for the bill.

“This should be the law throughout the entire country,” said Malloy during a press conference that included gun control advocates, high school students and lawmakers. “There is no reason why anyone needs to own a device that can fire 90 bullets every 10 seconds but for the mass killing of people.”

I’m going to interrupt here and mention that my initial reactions to Malloy’s comments are, well, unprintable. I’m a professional, and I try not to use that kind of language when I’m working. I’m sure you can imagine.

However, I will add that “need” is irrelevant when it comes to our rights. There’s no need for Malloy to pontificate on what he thinks the laws in the rest of the country should be, yet there he is anyway. See how that works?

The same is true with “rate of fire enhancements.” I shouldn’t have to illustrate a need to have something.

Schmuck.

Anyway, back to the story.

The new law, now Public Act No. 18-29, defines a “rate of fire enhancement” as any bump stock, binary trigger, trigger crank or similar device and makes it a Class D felony under Connecticut law to manufacture, own, possess, sell or transfer one. Violators could face five years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. There is no route to legal ownership or grandfathering of devices already in circulation in the state, leaving those with one on their hands until October to comply with the law.

It doesn’t appear that shoelaces or rubber bands, both of which can be used for bump fire, are covered under this bill.

Or do those not count because people “need” those?

The truth is, Connecticut and most other states have no issue with these devices. They’ve never seen a problem with them within their borders. The nation has seen precisely one. It was horrific, but these aren’t commonly used for crime, and it’s beyond time to stop pretending anyone is safer from a law like this.

It should be noted that despite the availability of such devices since Las Vegas, not a single other mass shooter using an AR-15 style rifle has used bump fire.

In other words, Malloy and his ilk are doing nothing but waving the flag to their fellow travelers, signaling how they care so hard.

In the meantime, work that went into this could have been devoted to doing something that might actually make life better for Connecticut’s citizens.

The post Connecticut Bans ‘Rate Of Fire Enhancements’ On Firearms appeared first on Bearing Arms.

Read more from Bearing Arm…

California Punishing Hospitals That Provide Too Much Health Care: ObamaCare Rationing Setting In

Rationing is for wartime, and for communism. And it’s also for patients under Obamacare.

Big changes are coming to the Obamacare marketplace for California, as hospitals are being punished for providing the ‘wrong’ kind of care.

According to Dr. Lance Lang of Covered California, the stat’s health insurance marketplace under Obamacare,

“We’re saying ‘time’s up.’ We’ve told health plans that by the end of 2019, we want networks to only include hospitals that have achieved this target.”

According to WBUR news,

“Here’s how hospitals will be measured: They must perform fewer unnecessary cesarean sections, prescribe fewer opioids, and cut back on the use of imaging (X-rays, MRIs and CT scans) to diagnose and treat back pain.”

I can already hear the uproar from women over the definition of an “unnecessary c-section.”

Essentially, hospitals will now we judged by a few key targets.

Let’s take c-sections for example. The target for hospitals is now to deliver more babies vaginally while ignoring the reason for c-sections. With fewer c-sections, women are less in control of their own health outcomes, unless they work with their doctor to lie on their paperwork to change the need for a c-section to one that’s approved by the marketplace.

According to Lang, California hospitals are using c-sections for 40% of births in the state. One hospital in particular delivers by c-section in 78% of cases.

“That means that when a woman goes to a hospital, it’s the culture of the hospital that really determines whether or not she gets a cesarean section, not so much her own health.”

I get the feeling that Lang has never spoken to a pregnant lady before.

So why focus on c-sections? It’s because payments for hospitals are higher for c-sections than for vaginal deliveries. According to Health Care Journalism,

“You’ve got to align payment incentives with the quality goal that you’re seeking… if you’re paying more to just have episodic c-sections, then all the money is going there instead of where it needs to be.”

That is, c-sections are raking in too much money, and they must be stopped. Sorry ladies, your own preferences don’t matter.

And with opioids. Instead of tracking usage, and using the data to figure out if the use of opioids is causing harm by feeding addiction, or if opioid usage is related to patients not getting treatment for their pain, the only goal is less opioids.

It’s similar to the 1990s craze of low fat. Nutrition guidelines pushed for lower fat content, in foods, which instead drove up the amount of sugar and the number of calories, making people fatter than before. In other words, it’s impossible to control one factor without seeing change elsewhere.

Other Goals: Fewer Scans For Back Pain

From the perspective of patients, back pain is notoriously hard to diagnose, and we all know several people who spent years struggling to have their pain recognized and treated.

By limiting the number of x-rays, MRIs and CT scans to find the source of back pain, Dr. Lang says that it’s actually a “quality improvement project” because it has a “deadline.”

According to The Spectator,

“Much of the “research” upon which the initiative is based was provided by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF)… a think tank that does a lot of… well… thinking for bureaucrats like Dr. Lang. It is the primary source for his talking points on C-sections as well as the cutbacks on diagnostic tests for back pain. The latter has long been the goal of CHCF, which deems such tests unnecessary.”

Here’s a snippet from a report published by the CHCF specifically on addressing the ‘overuse’ of MRIs:

“Focusing on reducing wasteful spending, most supported stricter rules for coverage of MRIs for the first few weeks of acute low back pain. Since other treatments (e.g., physical therapy) can help patients, these stricter rules seemed reasonable.”

Maybe they’re making sure there’s enough money to deal with the onslaught of STDs including HIV that have been hitting the state of late, after Moonbeam Jerry Brown decriminalized forgetting to tell a sexual partner that you have AIDS.

Recently, we highlighted some of the bonkers new laws that were rolling out on the left coast, including bans on plastic bags and banning state visits to neighbors who aren’t cool with tranny bathrooms.

“Before we get started: California’s government is currently $1.3 trillion in debt. Instead of working on their economy or even the ridiculous traffic snarls, they’re prioritizing these insane laws.”

What a nice state.

Sources: WBUR, Spectator, Health Care Journalism

The post California Punishing Hospitals That Provide Too Much Health Care: ObamaCare Rationing Setting In appeared first on Joe For America.

Read more from Joe for America…

Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport

There is a new lawsuit in Ohio – spearheaded by Institute for Justice – claiming Customs and Border Protection seized the life-savings of an immigrant family at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport without charging anyone with a crime. The suit says Rustem Kazazi was headed to Albania to do work on a home when he was accosted by CBP for the $58K in his carry-on. Via IJ:

While going through security, Rustem was detained by a group of CBP agents, who took him to a small room. The agents questioned Rustem in English—a language he only partially understands—and refused his requests for a translator. They stripped him naked and searched him from head to toe, but found nothing illegal. As if these indignities were not enough, the agents then took every penny of the Kazazis’ savings and gave Rustem a receipt for “U.S. Currency” that did not state the amount seized. Rustem was not arrested—he had not broken any law. The CBP agents simply took his money and sent him on his way.

There are plenty of pejoratives to describe this situation: baseless, authoritarian, police state, and un-American. The fact Rustem, who is an American citizen, had his money stolen by the government for the simple reason he had it in his carry-one is asinine. It’s a clear violation of the 4th Amendment because CBP seized the cash without bothering to make a reasonable effort to find an interpreter to establish whether probable cause existed. It’s a major failure on the government’s part, which shouldn’t be surprising because it’s government.

A little background on Rustem Kazazi. He’s a former Albanian police officer who immigrated to the U.S. with his family in 2005. IJ notes he became a citizen in 2010. Why was he carrying $58K on his person? The suit says Kazazi and his family didn’t want to deal with banking fees and figured it was easier to just have cash on hand. You or I might find it a little weird to carry that much money in a carry-on (or anywhere else) but it was his choice.

The suit itself has more details on the bureaucratic idiocy Kazazi and his family are going through. It doesn’t paint the government in a good light. Remember…Kazazi was never charged with a crime or arrested. Via the suit:

While Rustem was still away in Albania, CBP sent him a Notice of Seizure on December 1, 2017 claiming that the amount taken from him had been $57, 330 ($770 less than the amount the agents had seized in October). This document also announced, for the first time, that the agents had seized the money for being “involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation.” The notice informed Rustem that CBP intended to seek civil forfeiture of his money using an internal administrative process. And it appraised Rustem of his right to submit a claim to the money and request, instead, that civil forfeiture proceedings be referred to federal court. However, this initial seizure noticed included conflicting deadlines for responding. With [his son]’s help, the family contacted CPB about the conflicting dates, which the agency eventually corrected by sending an amended seizure notice, which set Saturday, January 13, 2018 as the deadline for receiving claims and any demand for federal court action.

So far, the Kazazis are following the process by which people can dispute any civil asset forfeiture seizures. Here’s where things get more fun – if by more fun you mean completely stupid. Court documents say the family didn’t want to go through the administrative process because they wanted a judge to decide on the cash. CBP didn’t want to play ball (which makes sense because better to trust bureaucrats than judges) and the suit claims things went further downhill (emphasis mine).

[O]n March 30, a CBP attorney in Chicago called [Rustem’s son] and left a voicemail, saying she wanted to discuss, “whether you want [the case] to go to court or if we could handle this administratively.” The attorney urged [Rustem’s son] to call back quickly because the agency’s deadline to begin the court process would expire “within the next week”- that is, no later than April 6, 2018. Three weeks later, when still no forfeiture complaint had been filed, [Rustem’s son] wrote to his contact at CBP to ask why the family’s money had not been returned. The response was distressingly bureaucratic: CBP had no idea. For the first, CBP told the Kazazis that it had no control over the case; instead, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was in control. When [the son] asked whom he could contract at the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, the agency claimed that it had no contact there and would not know who was handling the case until “a decision is made.”

Today, more than seven months since CBP agents unconstitutionally seized the Kazazis’ money and upended their lives, the government still has not begun civil forfeiture proceedings. It cannot do so now, as the deadline to seek forfeiture of the money expired no later than April 17. For the reasons explained below, the Court should order CBP to return the money.

This is why civil asset forfeiture has to be reformed on a federal level. I’ve written on the awfulness of civil asset forfeiture before and believe the Justice Department’s 2017 guidelines on the issue are obscene. I think it should be made illegal and the only asset forfeiture allowed is criminal asset forfeiture i.e. after a conviction.

Policing for profit needs to stop. Hopefully this case will force Congress to act on reform legislation.

The post Cleveland family suing on claims CBP seized life-savings at airport appeared first on Hot Air.

Read more from Hot Air…

The Problem With Mandatory Reporting Of Missing Guns Laws

After the post about the police recovering stolen guns, a reader contacted me. He pointed out how gun owners tend to be a little paranoid about the government knowing what they own, thus why they don’t report their guns missing.

It’s a fair point. As a community, we tend to try and keep that stuff as secret as possible.

He also brought up mandatory reporting laws, legislation that’s been proposed in various places that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within a certain amount of time.

Now, I have a major problem with mandatory reporting laws. Part of the reason? Well, it’s part of the same reason why I oppose universal background checks.

They’re unenforceable without gun registration.

Take my firearms for example. I’ve mentioned a couple here and there on this site, but I have a number I haven’t. Let’s say those guns were stolen and I failed to report them for whatever reason. How can I reasonably be caught breaking this law?

Without gun registration, I can’t. No one will know that firearm belonged to me. No one will know if it was stolen, lost, sold, or what. Not a soul.

The only people who will ever be punished are those who are honest enough to report their failure to comply with the law. That’s it.

What’s more, I can easily see this as being used to sell registration to the public. “We have to make people register them, so we know how the bad guys got the guns in the first place. This will also make people follow the reporting laws!”

An unknowledgeable public will shrug and think, “Makes sense.” They’ll back the new law easily enough.

Cries by gun rights groups of the potential downsides will be ignored. “You brought this on yourself,” they’ll say. “If only you and your crowd had complied with the reporting laws in the first place, we wouldn’t need to do this.”

The thing is, they don’t know that anyone failed to comply. All they’ll know is that they have guns with serial numbers not reported as stolen. They won’t have a clue just how they got there. They’ll just use gun owners as scapegoats.

Again.

Yeah, yeah, I hear the anti-gunners now. They think it sounds paranoid.

However, they say the same thing when we point out how they ultimately want to come for our guns. We’re paranoid because no one would want to do that. Except when they do.

They keep saying we’re paranoid, but we’re not the ones who are looking for any reason to impose new regulations on gun owners. We’re not the ones terrified of our fellow man being armed. We want those same people to have weapons and to have them on their person whenever they want. If we were truly paranoid, if we truly believed everyone was “out to get us,” we’d be screaming for the opposite. We’d want to be the only ones who have guns.

The truth is, we’ve gotten used to looking a few moves ahead. We know for a fact that we can’t look at what’s being talked about now in a vacuum. We need to also look at how this rule can justify the next one.

In this case, mandatory reporting is just an innocuous-looking gateway. Where it can lead is terrifying, and it’s why we should always oppose such proposals.

The post The Problem With Mandatory Reporting Of Missing Guns Laws appeared first on Bearing Arms.

Read more from Bearing Arm…

Knife Rights’ Louisiana Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill Signed

Switchblade
Switchblade
KnifeRights.org
KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- Knife Rights’ bill to repeal Louisiana’s antiquated ban on the possession of switchblade knives, HB 892, was signed by Governor Edwards! Switchblade Freedom Day in Louisiana will be August 1, 2018, when the new law goes into effect.

We’d like to acknowledge Representative Mark Wright for his sponsorship and leadership and Senator Bodi White for shepherding the bill through the Senate.

Thanks to all of you who called and emailed your legislators and Governor Edwards to ask them to support the bill. When you call and email, it is a huge help to Todd Rathner, our Director of Legislative Affairs, who worked tirelessly in Louisiana on this bill.

Knife Rights would also like to express our appreciation to Dan Zelenka, President of the Louisiana Shooters Association, for his efforts in laying the groundwork for this bill. We are also grateful to Knife Rights board member and Louisiana resident Tom Gresham and Knife Rights member Clifford Grout for their roles in assisting us in this effort.

HB 892 repeals the total ban on switchblade knives in Louisiana and allows for the possession of a switchblade knife provided it is not “intentionally concealed on one’s person.” That provision was necessary to gain the neutrality of the Sheriffs and the State Police. Manufacture and sale of automatic knives would also become legal.

Allowing for the concealed carry of a switchblade in Louisiana is complicated because it would require a significant change to Louisiana’s concealed carry law. Knife Rights will continue to look for opportunities to fix this aspect of the law in the future.

Knife Rights’ record of 29 bills repealing knife bans at the state and local levels in 21 states in the past 8 years is unrivaled. With your support, Knife Rights is rewriting knife law in America.

Knife RightsAbout:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

The post Knife Rights’ Louisiana Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill Signed appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

Read more from AmmoLand…

The Rise of the Food-Related Lawsuit

Food lawsuits are on the rise. At first glance, most are terrible, some are good, and others require a closer look. It’s not easy to tell the difference between each type, which is why it’s important to look at who stands to benefit from these lawsuits and what they might accomplish for consumers.

Most food lawsuits (at least the ones that interest me) exist under the broad umbrella of tort law, which—in contrast to criminal law—”addresses private wrongs and has a central purpose of compensating the victim rather than punishing the wrongdoer.”

What makes a food lawsuit “good” or “bad”? For one, we can ask if a defendant did exactly what the suit alleges, was the defendant wrong to do so? If the court rules in the plaintiff’s favor—and against the defendant—will the plaintiff be better off and will the defendant be sufficiently discouraged from behaving similarly in the future? In the case of larger lawsuits (larger either in terms of monetary damages or because the suit is filed on behalf of more than one plaintiff), would society benefit if the court were to find in favor of the plaintiffs?

We must also consider the unintended consequences of such lawsuits. We should seek to understand whether a suit harms society (say, through added costs, decreased availability of products or services, or encouraging frivolous litigation) in any way.

Some cases immediately check all the right boxes for a “good” food lawsuit.

For example, a lawsuit filed this month by a Florida woman alleges she was sickened by salmonella (a potentially fatal bacteria) contained in eggs she bought and ate. She’s one of 35 people in nine states allegedly sickened by eggs from an Indiana farm. More than ten people, including Judy Roberts of Florida, required hospitalization. Here, if the farm in question did exactly what the suit alleges and the court rules in favor of compensating Ms. Roberts at the farm’s expense, Roberts will be better off and the farm will likely behave better in the future.

In another case reported this month, a Florida butcher sued the Publix grocery store chain this month after the company fired her because she reported alleged food-safety violations at the store location where she worked. Society benefits from (and should encourage) whistleblowers, even if their actions might result ultimately in higher consumer prices. If Publix did exactly what the suit alleges and the court rules in favor of compensating the plaintiff, the plaintiff and society will be better off and the Publix will likely be discouraged from behaving similarly in the future.

Staying in Florida, at least one other food-related lawsuit filed there this month is of the “closer look” variety.

In that case, Florida’s attorney general filed an action in civil court under the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging Ice Box, a restaurant with two Florida locations, profited “from the increased demand for locally-sourced or sustainable products [by] including false and misleading claims about their menu items.” Florida seeks to enjoin the restaurant from continuing to make such claims and is asking the judge to award civil penalties and attorney’s fees.

The state claims Ice Box, a longtime Oprah Winfrey favorite that has locations on South Beach and at Miami International Airport, “represents that its food products were locally grown and markets meals… as ‘farm to terminal’ options for travelers. In reality, few of the meals, if any, offered and sold at [the airport…] were made with products from local farms and nearby sources.” More damningly, the state also claims the Miami Beach location stated “it purchased products from specific Florida farms and suppliers when such was not the case.” And the state claims the restaurant’s falsely touted some fish wild or fresh-caught when the fish was allegedly frozen or farm-raised. The state claims Ice Box harmed both consumers—who willingly paid more for food they believed to be fresh, local, and/or sustainable—and competing restaurants.

Ice Box owner Robert Siegmann, who is also named in the suit, told the Miami Herald that “he relies on his vendors for information about the source of ingredients [and that i]f items aren’t locally grown… his suppliers are the ones doing the misrepresenting.”

Why the focus this week on Florida? For one, the state is home to more lawsuits a growing category—food class-action lawsuits (FCAs)—than all but two other states, according to a 2017 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, which has sounded the alarm over what it labels a “surge” of FCAs. (A class-action suit is a lawsuit brought by a members of a class of consumers on behalf of all consumers in the class.)

In one such case, also filed this month in Florida, a pair of plaintiffs sued McDonald’s, claiming the burger chain “is forcing customers to pay for cheese on its signature Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder burgers, even if they only want plain burgers.” The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their suit, which for some reason brings to mind a scene from Five Easy Pieces.

One of my goals is to distinguish between “good” and “bad” food lawsuits, and I’ll be exploring the issue further in an article for the Loyola Consumer Law Review.

Many of these lawsuits appear frivolous at first glance (and, perhaps, even more so on closer inspection). But some are anything but frivolous. They’re filed to redress one or more examples of actual harm suffered by one or more plaintiffs.

We should applaud cases where the judicial branch makes injured parties whole while discouraging similar bad actors and actions in the future without the need for new laws and regulations.

Read more from Reason.com…