SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,820
- 365
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 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.
Lawsuit against gun maker, seller allowed to proceed in Mt. Pleasant shooting case
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a strongly worded decision, ruled that a lawsuit filed by the parents of a 13-year-old Mt. Pleasant boy who was killed accidentally when his friend fired a gun at him can move forward. It is the first appeals court in the country to find that
triblive.com
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?