Gustafson v. Springfield: Pennsylvania court rules PLCAA unconstitutional

[Tom Servo]

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is unconstitutional. They claim it violates the tenth amendment, and that a Springfield XD pistol is defective because it lacks a magazine disconnect.

The decision is here [pdf file].

 

[ATN082268]

I didn't know a state court could declare Federal law unconstitutional. Also, did that court decide by fiat that not having a magazine disconnect made a gun "defective."

 

[Metal god]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^that^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The XD9 with out mag disconnect is not defective. I own one actually 2 including the very model they are talking about and it works as designed . Its one of the few semi auto hand guns still allowed to be sold in CA with out a disconnect. Unless the gun in dispute came with a mag disconnect. How did they conclude it was defective. Also the XD 9 has a loaded chamber indicator as well as the back end of the striker sticks out of the rear of the slide when cocked/ready to fire . You can see it and feel it . Both clear as day if you know what your looking for .

There are many safeties on firearms that with out knowing where to look you may miss them . To expect anyone unfamiliar with firearms or that specific handgun to know where the safety indicators are especially a 14year old child is unreasonable IMO .

 

[44 AMP]

To expect anyone unfamiliar with firearms or that specific handgun to know where the safety indicators are especially a 14year old child is unreasonable IMO .

I think there is a bigger point here, the claim that the gun design is DEFECTIVE, because it lacks a magazine disconnect (it's NOT a "safety" even though people call it that), and that due to that "defect" the kid thought it was safe when it wasn't.

Had the boy checked the chamber, and had he NOT pointed it at his friend AND PULLED THE TRIGGER, the entire idea of a defect due to lack of a magazine disconnect would be moot.

the boy didn't follow the basic safety rules of firearms use. He violated several of them, and as a result killed his friend.

That is the only relevant matter as far as I can see. Had the accidental shooting happened with a revolver, the case never would have been brought by any litigator with a shred of integrity.

Just my opinion, based on nothing but my opinion, but it looks to me like this case is brought and driven by a law firm using the natural grief at the loss of a child to take the parents money, caring not in the least about actual justice, or the law, or the outcome of the case. They'll get paid, no matter what the result is.

 

[raimius]

What a mess. The court conveniently ignores longstanding commerce clause cases (Wickard anyone?) Then makes the claim that prohibitions on lawsuits regulates the activities of crime victims.
I particularly disliked how the court listed the exceptions listed in the law, then claimed there were no real exceptions...not sure how they could rationalize that!

 

[Marco Califo]

any litigator with a shred of integrity

.
Oxymoron.

 

[Brit]

(Clear as day if you knew what your looking for) My wife had an English teacher, who would have wacked your knuckles for that YOUR as opposed to "You are." Dont massacrer the English language more than it has been massacred already.
The problem here? Why was the handgun not in a safe? The only firearm out of the safe in my house, is the one on my person.

 

[Spats McGee]

A few quick observations:

1. Yes, a state court can hold a federal statute unconstitutional. Where it goes from here and whether that holds up is a much trickier question. To be honest, I'm surprised that the case wasn't removed to federal court, but since I haven't read the actual complaint, I don't know if it was possible.

2. I'm not a products liability lawyer, not by a long shot. That said, it looks like the claim is that the design itself was defective. A product may be found defective in either manufacturing or design. If I were to design a .460 Rowland semiauto with a built-in barrel blockage, that would be defective, even if manufactured exactly to specs, and functioned exactly as those specs would dictate.

 

[44 AMP]

I read most of the linked court statement, until my eyes crossed and my brain refused to go any further, and there seems to be two different, interlinked issues.

First, and apparently foremost in the PA court's eyes was whether or not the PLCAA actually applied, and if so could be used as a defense.

The Fed law has several "qualifiers" under which a gun maker/seller can be sued, ONE of them is defective product.

One thing that did surprise me was that the PA court did NOT accept either the text of the law, or the on record statements of the guy who wrote is, as conclusive evidence of the intent and scope of the act's coverage.

In effect, they said "we don't care what the author wrote or what people have been doing for years, we are making our own ruling". Or so it seems to me...

The other point is not directly addressed, other than an apparent assumption that the claim of a defective product is true.

IF TRUE it would allow suing the maker under the PLCAA.

But, IS IT TRUE??
IS the pistol "defective" because it lacks a magazine disconnect? Were the maker, and the seller AT FAULT for NOT instructing the boy who was not the purchaser or legal user of the pistol that the lack of a magazine disconnect meant the pistol would fire a chambered round with the magazine removed?

TO me, that seem more of a leap of blind faith than even the most lengthy stretch of logic.

In other words, it seems the plaintiff is saying the gun was defective, because we say it was defective, with no other evidence.

PERHAPS the intent of allowing this case to go forward is the desire of the PA judge panel to give them the opportunity to prove the "defect" by argument in court. Or not...

 

[LeverGunFan]

If we allow for a moment that the lack of a magazine disconnect is a "defect", then we know that a large number of existing pistols have this same alleged "defect". So under what circumstances is it reasonable for someone to pick up any pistol, assume it has a magazine disconnect, and point it at another person and pull the trigger?

 

[ATN082268]

A few quick observations:

1. Yes, a state court can hold a federal statute unconstitutional. Where it goes from here and whether that holds up is a much trickier question. To be honest, I'm surprised that the case wasn't removed to federal court, but since I haven't read the actual complaint, I don't know if it was possible.

2. I'm not a products liability lawyer, not by a long shot. That said, it looks like the claim is that the design itself was defective. A product may be found defective in either manufacturing or design. If I were to design a .460 Rowland semiauto with a built-in barrel blockage, that would be defective, even if manufactured exactly to specs, and functioned exactly as those specs would dictate.

1. Are you saying a state court can challenge a Federal law or void a Federal law?

2. Something that works as designed isn't defective but can be a poor design. Of course the law can define defective, assault weapons or anything else as it likes but that may not be the way the majority of people define it.

 

[Metal god]

If I were to design a .460 Rowland semiauto with a built-in barrel blockage, that would be defective

Would you like to explain how you came to that conclusion ?

If a firearm manufacture produced a firearm with a barrel obstruction as "part of the design " that would not be a defect IMHO . Keeping in mind as you describe it the obstruction was not a mistake but rather built in by design . Which I'd think you figure out the "defect" the first time you tested your design , unless you are you would build it and never test it once before selling it to others ? As a manufacture of firearms they have a complete understanding of the purpose of a firearm and that is to force a projectile out the muzzle at a high rate of speed . Designing a firearm that can not accomplish that "by design" is not defective . It's an intended malicious act "designed" to cause harm . which you should be liable for .

Magazine disconnects are generally rare as far as the history of firearms goes . Meaning not having one can't reasonably be considered a defect . It would make all firearms with out them defective . How many rifles that use a mag have a mag disconnect ? Are those all defective rifles ?

 

[Spats McGee]

1. Are you saying a state court can challenge a Federal law or void a Federal law?

Yes. Ordinarily, a challenge to federal law will occur in federal court, because the defender will often "remove" the case from state to federal court. This thread is about this very thing happening: a Pennsylvania state court has held the PLCAA (federal law) unconstitutional.

It's important to remember exactly what that means, though. A Pennsylvania trial-court decision is binding within that case ("the law of the case"), but only persuasive beyond that. So if I were defending Springfield, Inc. in a similar case in Arkansas, the Pennsylvania case would not be binding.

Also, there's a process by which the federal courts can review the determination of unconstitutionality. Springfield could appeal up through the state appellate courts and then on to SCOTUS, for example. And once the case gets to those state appellate courts there may (and I emphasize "may" here) be a way to "certify the question" to the federal courts. Certifying the question effectively means "ask the federal courts to rule on the narrow issue of PLCAA constitutionality" in this case. We have such a procedure in the 8th Circuit. Presumably, the 3rd (where PA sits) also has such a procedure.

 

[Spats McGee]

2. Something that works as designed isn't defective but can be a poor design. Of course the law can define defective, assault weapons or anything else as it likes but that may not be the way the majority of people define it.

I wasn't talking about how the majority of people define it. This is the Law & Civil Rights forum. I was talking about how the law defines it.

Would you like to explain how you came to that conclusion ?

If a firearm manufacture produced a firearm with a barrel obstruction as "part of the design " that would not be a defect IMHO . Keeping in mind as you describe it the obstruction was not a mistake but rather built in by design ....

I came to that conclusion because the design itself would be defective. Here's an example of a court laying out the elements of a defective design claim.

Under Minnesota law, a products liability claim for defective design requires: (1) the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; (2) the defect existed when it left the manufacturer’s control; and (3) the defect was the proximate cause of the injury sustained.... A manufacturer has a duty to design its product to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm when the product is used as intended or in an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable manner.... “Whether a product is defective is generally a question of fact; only where reasonable minds cannot differ does the question become one of law.” .... Green Plains Otter Tail, LLC v. Pro-Envtl., Inc., 953 F.3d 541, 545–46 (8th Cir. 2020)

(Edited for brevity)

 

[44 AMP]

A manufacturer has a duty to design its product to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm when the product is used as intended or in an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable manner....

this seems reasonable to me, but I would point out that the concept unreasonable harm applies to the USER, and should not, ever, be confused with harm to someone else cause by the user, and not the item directly.

We are dealing here with root causes and major contributing factors, and they are not identical.

Like an airplane crash, the root cause is gravity, but the contributing factors may be mechanical failure, or pilot error, or combinations of those and other factors.

in this case, I see an attempt to claim that something which MIGHT have been a contributing factor is being claimed to have been the root cause, and therefore the gun maker, etc, can be sued.
I disagree.

The victim was NOT killed because the gun was "defective" He died because the person holding the gun pointed it at him and pulled the trigger, firing the weapon, exactly in accordance with its design both as intended and executed.

Period.

WHY the person who pulled the trigger thought the gun would not fire does not, to me, have a direct bearing on the facts and the result of the shooting.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The victim was NOT killed because the gun was "defective" He died because the person holding the gun pointed it at him and pulled the trigger, firing the weapon, exactly in accordance with its design both as intended and executed.

Period.

WHY the person who pulled the trigger thought the gun would not fire does not, to me, have a direct bearing on the facts and the result of the shooting.

As a layperson (non-attorney), this strikes me as a good, succinct summary of the case and the situation.

The court's ruling is consistent with what seems to be a prevailing liberal attitude that stupid people must not be held accountable when they do stupid things. Blame (and therefore financial liability) must be assigned to some third party agency or entity -- preferably a third party agency or entity with deep pockets or lots of insurance.

 

[Metal god]

Just seems to me that if a 14yr old took my car (without permission) and ran over my son, killing him, it would be Ford's fault? And the dealership I bought the car from?

No because the car was not defective , No wait all cars are defective because they don't have a door handle disconnect . This releases the handle from the latch when children under 17 try the door handle not allowing the door to open so they can't get in . No wait 2.0 , how about those cars that have auto opening doors . Hmm those not only don't have a door handle disconnect , they actually invite children into the car allowing them to run people over . SHAME !!!

I think I finally understand the law and how judges apply it now . Just make stuff up and hope you don't get called on it , correct ? By just making things up it allows the court to now say all pistols with out a firing pin block are defective . Jiminy xmas where does that stop , we could sit here all day and figure out ways to "claim" any certain type of firearm is defective because it doesn't have a safety feature some other firearm has .

That argument is as bad as that one judge saying the law doesn't actually need to prevent the intended crimes as long as people think it does . sorry I forget the case but remember reading about it and thinking

 

[zukiphile]

I think I finally understand the law and how judges apply it now . Just make stuff up and hope you don't get called on it , correct ?

Generally not "Just", no.

If you made a rifle receive and barrel from prints with perfectly accurate specification, but you made every metal piece 10% thinner, the barrel would fall out of the receiver and the rifle wouldn't even be operable. That doesn't mean you "just" made up a design; there was a good design in there a few steps back, but your judgment made it a wreck.

Now, imagine you are a judge and want one party to prevail. Suppose you resolve each element of your analysis in a way that gives your favored party the benefit of every doubt.

A manufacturer has a duty to design its product to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm when the product is used as intended or in an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable manner....

What does each of those elements above mean? I'm certain Glock doesn't intend people to point a pistol at the left hand as they press the trigger during disassembly, and that they tell you to have it empty, but is it reasonably foreseeable that this happens? Run through a dozen of these subtests with an eye toward your desired result. Do you think they result will be the one you want? That doesn't mean you "just made up" a different test, but it also doesn't mean that you dispassionately applied the accepted standard. You didn't adhere to the print specs.

Do judges ever just make things up? Absolutely, but that doesn't describe the ordinary process in my limited experience.

 

[Metal god]

If you made a rifle receive and barrel from prints with perfectly accurate specification, but you made every metal piece 10% thinner, the barrel would fall out of the receiver and the rifle wouldn't even be operable. That doesn't mean you "just" made up a design; there was a good design in there a few steps back, but your judgment made it a wreck

Oops I clearly didn't write my post very well . I meant the judge just made stuff up . The gun is not defective in any way . Just because it doesn't have a mag disconnect , that doesn't make it defective and yet the judge writes it as it were so .

Like I said , If that were the standard we could figure out a way to claim all firearms are defective in some way just by applying that rational . If they don't have some feature another firearm does , they must be defective . My point seems so obvious to me I feel it not necessary to write out the 20+ examples I can think of right off the top of my head . I've already gave two , are all bolt action rifles with out mag disconnects defective , if not why and why does it not apply her ? Are all pistols with out a firing pin block defective if not why and why does it not apply here ? Allowing this ruling to go forward as written will establish a precedent the gun industry could never recover from IMHO .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This decision doesn't speak well of the former United States Ordnance Department. During the development and testing of what became the Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 and M1911A1 the Ordnance department requested that additional safety features be added to the 1910 prototype, which did not have a thumb safety. So Colt and John Moses Browning added a thumb safety. But the Ordnance Department failed to request a magazine disconnect, so I guess all U.S. military M1911s and M1911A1s are defective by design, and the U.S. government should be held accountable. The 1911 was designed to meet the government's specifications.