The Case That Could Topple the Gun Industry's Special Legal Protections Part 2

[AndyS]

Part one in here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215706458 These are the details.

Pa. Superior Court rules gun law unconstitutional, says lawsuit in teen's death can proceed

The plaintiffs argued the PLCAA interferes with authority that should be reserved by the state. They claimed the act bars states from  imposing liability on gun companies and immunizes the gun industry from every conceivable type of liability known to the common law.

What the court said in its 63 page opinion:

The Defendants [Springfield Arms] responded by saying the act is not a 10th Amendment violation because it does not commandeer the powers of state executive officials or the legislative process, a point the court called a strawman argument.

“[T]he Defendants do not answer the Gustafsons’ [teenager's parents] theory,” Judge Kunselman wrote. “The Gustafsons never alleged the PLCAA commandeers political branches.” Rather, the family asserted Congress’ passage of the act “usurped” the states’ powers and the judiciary’s lawmaking authority. 

“If we accept the Federal Government’s theory that filing a state action, in a state court, is within Congress’s reach, then the 50 states must forfeit all their sovereignty to the Federal Government,”

The court found that the entirety of the PLCAA is unconstitutional, saying such bills have no place in American democracy and calling it “repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and, therefore, without the force or effect of law.”

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/09/29/plcaa-unconstitutional-lawsuit-gun-manufacturer-mt-pleasant-jr-gustafson-shooting-springfield-arms-saloom/stories/202009290126

This opinion was issued in 2020 so as the gears grind slowly perhaps something will come to head soon. It will at least go the the PA supreme court and perhaps to the SCOTUS.

I have wondered how such a law could be any more legitimate than a Monopoly "get out of jail free" card. Courts are usually reluctant to give up their authority and take being the third co-equal branch of government seriously.

We shall see how this proceeds. Watch this space . . .

[multigraincracker]

1. States rights?

That's going to hurt.

[KS Toronado]

2. FYI...Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

[True Blue American]

3. Good news!

[jaxexpat]

4. What is that glimmer? Just over there.

Could it be, hope?

[Joinfortmill]

5. 👍

[sl8]

6. Case to be reheard by full court, possibly in 2021

https://www.nssh.com/2021/02/pennsylvania-superior-court-to-reconsider-whether-federal-law-protecting-gun-manufacturers-from-liability-is-unconstitutional/

PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT TO RECONSIDER WHETHER FEDERAL LAW PROTECTING GUN MANUFACTURERS FROM LIABILITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered the constitutionality of the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which immunizes gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products. In September 2020, a Superior Court panel became the first court in the country to hold that the law was entirely unconstitutional, Gustafson v. Springfield Armory. In December 2020, the Superior Court vacated the panel’s decision and is anticipated to hear reargument in 2021.

The PLCAA was passed in 2005 and specifically prohibits “civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.” The act describes imposing such liability “on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others” as an “abuse of the legal system.” It continues by stating that the liability, “erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a based constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.”

[...]

Although other state courts have held that parts of the PLCAA are not constitutional, the Pennsylvania Superior Court panel was the first to court to hold that it is “repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and, therefore, without the force or effect of law.”

[...]

It is not surprising that the Superior Court granted reargument. It is highly unusual for an intermediate state appellate court to hold that a fifteen-year old federal law violates the federal constitution. It is unknown whether the Superior Court will follow other state courts which found portions of the law are unconstitutional. It is anticipated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would review any future decision that the federal law or portions thereof are unconstitutional.

[boston bean]

7. Excellent!

You know who from the “progressive wing” of the party voted for this disgusting law, right?

Glad it is getting another look.

[3Hotdogs]

9. I don't know who. So let me in on the secret.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. This is great news! Thanks for all the details, Andy. n/t

[crickets]

10. Thanks for continuing to post on this, Andy. K&R