Likely, yes. Which is why the PLCAA was originally passed. While I’m certain that people who believe they are on the political left don’t see why this would be a problem, it’s easy to apply the same principle to any business that someone on the right disagrees with, in order to eliminate business models that social/economic regressives disagree with.
Also listed is Vintage Firearms, the store that sold the shooter the gun, and RMA Armament, the online retailer the shooter used to purchased body armor.
Assuming that Vintage Firearms and RMA Armament complied with the applicable ATF regulations, I’m not sure how they’re responsible in any way, unless the point is to use lawsuits to bankrupt a legal business for acting in a legal way. It would make as much sense as suing Ford for manufacturing and selling a vehicle that was used to intentionally run over pedestrians. It’s unreasonable to expect that a firearms retailer is going to be able to ascertain the future actions of every single person that purchases a firearm.
Not strictly necessary. If his parents were US citizens–and they aren’t–then it wouldn’t matter where he was born. Kind of. I think that there might be residency requirements for children of US citizens that are born abroad, e.g., if your parents are expats and you live all your life in another country, you might not be a citizen, but it’s complicated. You’d def. want to contact an immigration attorney if that was the case.
BUT…!
The point is that Musk, since he wasn’t born to US citizens, and since he wasn’t born in the US, isn’t eligible to run for president.
It’s an open question as to what happens if he ran anyways, and how votes would be tabulated, etc. It would get messy, but I don’t think that it’s ever happened that someone ineligible has run for president and won any significant amount of the vote.