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

[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.