Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

PLCAA Unconstitutional

1K views 5 replies 5 participants last post by  moe mensale 
#1 ·
Per PA appellate court.

Nemo

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pe...aw-protecting-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits

Second Amendment
Published 1 hour ago
Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits
The case will almost certainly be appealed
By Tyler Olson | Fox News

A state appeals court in Pennsylvania declared the federal law that protects gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits unconstitutional on Monday in a victory for gun-control proponents that would allow the family of a 13-year-old boy who died in a 2016 shooting accident to move forward with a lawsuit against Springfield Arms and Saloom Department Store.

The boy, J.R. Gustafson, and his 14-year-old friend in a private home in 2016 obtained a gun that was in the home, which was manufactured by Springfield and sold by the department store. The friend removed the clip from the gun and believed it to be unloaded. But there was still a live round in the chamber when he pulled the trigger, unintentionally killing Gustafson.

The family of Gustafson then sued the department store and Springfield but were initially stymied by a lower court that ruled they could not sue under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The family argued that the act did not apply, and if it did apply it was unconstitutional.

The appeals court on Monday ruled the PLCAA is unconstitutional because the law overturns "common law dating back centuries" and does not adequately fit under the Constitution's commerce clause, saying "that merely because, at some point in time, that gun passed through interstate commerce, does not give Congress perpetual authority to regulate any harm it may cause."

. . .

continued
 
#4 ·
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901

Does this 2005 act of Congress actually invoke the Second Amendment as one of its bases for federal authority in this area?
They (Congress) briefly mentioned the 2nd Amendment,
but they spend more time talking about the commerce clause. I would consider the protection of lawful commerce in arms act to be "enabling legislation" that is implicitly, but clearly, authorized by the 2A itself.
 
#5 ·
If (IF) a conservative, Original Intent judge ruled that the commerce clause does not extend so far as to let Congress have general lawmaking power concerning any products that "move in" interstate commerce,
...and the Commerce Clause doesn't make it a federal question regarding how the products may or may not be made, sold, and used...


...Nor does the c.c. let the feds change long-standing doctrines of civil liability in tort...

THEN I wouldn't complain, especially if this ruling were part of a larger scheme of rolling back the scope of the commerce clause on many issues.
 
#6 ·
"Both federal and state courts have repeatedly upheld PLCAA against constitutional challenge. Advocates of gun control through litigation are unlikely to fare any better with this one," Olson said. "It is a matter of fact that most lawsuits targeting gunmakers are inherently filed against out-of-state defendants. It is also a matter of record that the organized campaign to obtain gun control through gun-liability lawsuits, to which PLCAA was a reaction, was coordinated across state lines to achieve goals that included preventing many interstate sales and transactions and obtaining a nationwide regulatory settlement."
And this will end up at the Supreme Court.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top