Pennsylvania Superior Court Strikes Down Law Protecting Gun Manufacturers

In a gun-control lovers move by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on Monday, the federal law protecting gun manufacturers and retailers from lawsuits was struck down as unconstitutional in its entirety. The PLCCA has prevented many gun manufacturers from being attacked by people who want to destroy the Second Amendment. Fortunately, this ruling does not apply nationwide and will most likely be appealed.

Better yet, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that PLCCA is "????????? ?? ??? ????????????." @bradybuzz could not agree more. We are a step closer to revoking legal immunity to the gun industry and furthering justice for victims of gun violence.

— Kris Brown (@KrisB_Brown) September 28, 2020

Unlike the rhetoric from gun control advocates, suing the manufacturer of a weapon does not bring “justice” for the person who was killed. The person who pulled the trigger is the responsible one. Guns don’t shoot anyone without someone or something pulling that trigger. But the Pennsylvania Superior Court called the law “repugnant.”

Fox reported,

“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.”

Here is the court’s ruling:

PLCAA Opinion by Fox News

In the case before the court, the Gustafson family sued the gun manufacturer because they were grieving the loss of their son. But the other young man, who didn’t intend to harm the boy, pulled the trigger. It’s a tragedy all the way around – but it is not the fault of the gun manufacturer or the retail store that sold it. This decision will be appealed. Keep in mind that it does not apply nationwide because it was only a state court’s decision.

In the case of the Sandy Hook families attempting to sue Remington, that case has been on again-off again for years. Conservative courts have said no, liberal courts have allowed it to progress.  This is another way gun control advocates see as an avenue to destroy your rights. It’s also the most important reason to make absolutely certain that President Trump wins in November – he has appointed 300 appellate judges and 2 Supreme Court judges during his term. The newest nominee would be the 3rd. #Savethe2nd

*****

Sign up for our Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children newsletter and check out our shop while you’re there!