Posted on 09/29/2020 11:08:14 AM PDT by knighthawk
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
State court ruling federal law unconstitutional? Hahahahahha
Since when can a State Appeals Court determine the constitutionality of a Federal Law?
State court rules Federal Law unconstitutional???????
This will be shot down in flames!
Is this satire? Good luck with that.
That is funny, but would be nice to have some gun control issues go to the 6/3 court so we can get more case law built around returning the 2nd to the people.
This is the equivalent of suing a car maker because of a drunk driver.
Really stupid judge - this is grounds for disbarment.
Yup! Stupid on steroids. And I don’t think the court has standing on federal law.
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,
= = =
This is a ‘design flaw’ of most semi’s. /s/s/s/s
Solved with training and using the ‘safety’ between your ears.
There are some pistols that will not fire without a magazine in place. Don’t recall the reasoning. Seems like a solution looking for a problem, to me. Or maybe to keep gun carrying folks who are not familiar with their weapon, safe.
So we can now sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers in PA?
We’ve been getting some real doozys elected as judges here. People need to wake-up for these off-year elections.
Disbarment is the only appropriate remedy in this case because burning at the stake would be overreacting.
What happened to personal responsibility?
The gun did not malfunction, it worked perfectly.
This is insane... more reason to have Amy Barrett in the Supreme Court when this case winds its way up in that direction.
Exactly
Springfield Arms and Saloom Department Store didn’t pull the trigger nor did they leave a loaded gun where a kid could find it.
This is the equivalent of suing a car maker because of a drunk driver.
__________________________________________________________
Didn’t a similar situation facilitate Remington Firearms demise?
Unfortunately. I think they're trying to sue gun makers out of existence. Idiots.
Remington Arms trying to use bankruptcy to wipe lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook families, lawyer says
Ahhhhhhm sorry! Did you think a state appellate court could over-rule a federal law on a matter of interstate trade? Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.