States Rights or Congressional Authority over Interstate Commerce? The Firearm Edition

What takes Precedence, States Rights or Congressional Authority?

  • States Rights

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Congressional Authority to regulate Commerce

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,396
Reaction score
1,461
Points
255
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,958
Reaction score
6,725
Points
360
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
I would say the 2nd A would be the decider in this one,,,
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,396
Reaction score
1,461
Points
255
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
I would say the 2nd A would be the decider in this one,,,
Nobody is trying to restrict the ownership of firearms. The question is if you can sue Springfield Armory for not including a Magazine Safety. The law that says you can’t is based in the Commerce Clause.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,958
Reaction score
6,725
Points
360
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
I would say the 2nd A would be the decider in this one,,,
Nobody is trying to restrict the ownership of firearms. The question is if you can sue Springfield Armory for not including a Magazine Safety. The law that says you can’t is based in the Commerce Clause.
the 2nd says no infringements of any kind,,so the commerce clause has no place on the matter,,,

but some say I'm a radical for such an opinion,,,
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
642
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
Nobody is trying to restrict the ownership of firearms
I have to call bullshit. They still want 10 years in prison federal felony for "unlawful" possession of a firearm by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective. Very aggressive gun-grabbing cops on the beat. Very liberal construction of prohibiting conditions to gun ownership on the judicial bench, along with a very narrow and restrictive deconstruction of gun rights as such.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,903
Reaction score
13,637
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
This case has nothing to do with Congress’ authority to regulate markets, it has to do with the court’s finding that no commerce took place between the gun manufacturer and the Gustafsons.

From the linked article:

‘“The act, the opinion continued, is unsustainable, because “it grants the gun industry immunity regardless of how far removed from interstate commerce the harm arises.

”Critically, neither J.R. nor his parents purchased the gun used to kill him, i.e., they did not engage in commerce of any kind. Hence, there was no existing commercial activity between the Gustafsons and the gun industry at the time of J.R.’s death for Congress to regulate,” Kunselman wrote.

”We hold 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.”

Instead, the use or misuse of a product should revert to a local matter, subject to state regulation, the court wrote.

“This is especially true where, as here, the product kills someone who did not even purchase it.”’


Consequently, because no commerce took place between the gun manufacturer and the Gustafsons, the regulatory provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act don’t apply.

Moreover, this isn’t an issue of “states’ rights” versus Federal regulatory authority as the thread premise suggests; rather; it’s an issue where Congress sought to regulate commerce where no commerce took place – there’s nothing to ‘regulate’ – and as such the matter defaults to the purview of the states.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,396
Reaction score
1,461
Points
255
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
This case has nothing to do with Congress’ authority to regulate markets, it has to do with the court’s finding that no commerce took place between the gun manufacturer and the Gustafsons.

From the linked article:

‘“The act, the opinion continued, is unsustainable, because “it grants the gun industry immunity regardless of how far removed from interstate commerce the harm arises.

”Critically, neither J.R. nor his parents purchased the gun used to kill him, i.e., they did not engage in commerce of any kind. Hence, there was no existing commercial activity between the Gustafsons and the gun industry at the time of J.R.’s death for Congress to regulate,” Kunselman wrote.

”We hold 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.”

Instead, the use or misuse of a product should revert to a local matter, subject to state regulation, the court wrote.

“This is especially true where, as here, the product kills someone who did not even purchase it.”’


Consequently, because no commerce took place between the gun manufacturer and the Gustafsons, the regulatory provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act don’t apply.

Moreover, this isn’t an issue of “states’ rights” versus Federal regulatory authority as the thread premise suggests; rather; it’s an issue where Congress sought to regulate commerce where no commerce took place – there’s nothing to ‘regulate’ – and as such the matter defaults to the purview of the states.
The PLCA was written to stop frivolous lawsuits. Imagine if Bob Smith rented a car from Hertz. It was a Ford. Bob gets drunk and runs into the family of Janet Jones. Janet sues Ford because they did not install some sort of drunk driving prohibition device. The case would be tossed out. Why? Because Ford is not responsible when Bob drinks and drives.

Now, if Ford shipped cars out that exploded if they were hit in the rear with the turn signal on. Well that would be a defective product, and they should get sued. Similarly if Springfield Armory shipped out guns that exploded when you pulled the trigger, they would be sued. Now before you say the would not. It has happened. Taurus shipped out a million of their "Millinium Pro" series of small pistols. The pistol has a design flaw. If you have any pressure on the trigger when you apply the safety, the safety will not engage. The pistol fires anyway. They were sued. The PLCA did not prevent the lawsuits. They paid out a lot of money for this design defect.

This decision is going to be overturned. It will probably go to the Supreme Court, and even the Liberals there would overturn it.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,903
Reaction score
13,637
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
“A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause.”

That’s because ‘liberal’ jurists follow precedent, something far too many conservative jurists fail to do.

Settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence holds that Congress has the authority to regulate all markets – both interstate and intrastate markets – because all markets are interrelated regardless their size and scope (see, Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

But again, that’s not what the case in the OP is about.

It’s about Congress seeking to regulate commerce that is not commerce – separate and apart from Congress’ authority to do.

The PLCA is un-Constitutional not because it conflicts with other case law, or violates the original intent of the Framers, or because it’s at odds with “states’ rights,” it’s un-Constitutional because it’s unenforceable.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,396
Reaction score
1,461
Points
255
A Three Judge Panel in Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision. That in and of itself is not unusual. That is what the Appeals Process is for. The ability to examine a case and see if the Law was misapplied or ignored.

This case on the other hand is different. The Courts including the Supreme Court have long upheld Congressional authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. The three Judge Panel found that this authority was not present in the lawsuit against Springfield Armory and a local gun shop. It ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was unconstitutional as it violated State Rights.


The argument of the Plaintiff is that Springfield Armory was Negligent in manufacturing the pistol that killed their son. And the Gun Shop was negligent in selling the gun. The Negligence was in not including a Magazine Safety. For those who do not know. It means the firearm can not function, can not fire if the Magazine is not inserted fully into the Magazine Well.

The trial judge ruled that the maker and gun shop were protected from lawsuits by the PLCA. The Three Judge Panel just overruled that decision. One can only assume more appeals to come.

Opinion Time. The Three Judge Panel is not thinking. A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause. The reason is about half the laws on the books would be challenged if the Supreme Court ruled any other way. And with the precedent of the overturning of the PLCA would have little choice but to find the war on Drugs to be a State Issue. Not to mention regulations on every other facet of life.

So when this case finally reaches the Supreme Court in about ten years, the Parents of that poor boy will be liable for a decade of legal fees. We have seen that before too.

What I wonder is if the Conservatives on this board believe that States Rights are applicable here and the PLCA is a violation of those well established Rights?
“A Supreme Court with nine Liberal Justices would find that Congress has the authority to pass laws based upon the Commerce Clause.”

That’s because ‘liberal’ jurists follow precedent, something far too many conservative jurists fail to do.

Settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence holds that Congress has the authority to regulate all markets – both interstate and intrastate markets – because all markets are interrelated regardless their size and scope (see, Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

But again, that’s not what the case in the OP is about.

It’s about Congress seeking to regulate commerce that is not commerce – separate and apart from Congress’ authority to do.

The PLCA is un-Constitutional not because it conflicts with other case law, or violates the original intent of the Framers, or because it’s at odds with “states’ rights,” it’s un-Constitutional because it’s unenforceable.
It has been enforced by the Court before. The Ninth Circuit refused to overturn the dismissal in Ileto V. Glock. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Nineth specifically said the PLCA was Constitutional.


Now let’s be honest. If any Court was going to find the slightest sliver of a reason to find against a gun maker it would be the Ninth.

The argument made by the Judges here is stretching it to the law and logic are barely a molecule thick. They did not engage in commerce. But the Weapons manufacturer did. The pistol was manufactured. Sold to a dealer in accordance with the law. The dealer sold it again in accordance of the law. If you wanted to sue the gun owner for not securing it. I would grant that this made sense. But suing the maker for not putting a safety feature that is controversial is nuts.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top