Gustafson v. Springfield: Pennsylvania court rules PLCAA unconstitutional

[Aguila Blanca]

Thank you for your explanation of the 10th amendment – even though I’m still kind of fuzzy on what it is and how it has anything to do with this but still, I still just don’t see how these people can come back and blame the handgun manufacturer because not all handguns are made the same.

The PLCCA is a federal law. In order for the federal government to enact any law affecting products, the product(s) must be or at one time have been in interstate commerce.

Going the other way, that concept is what lies behind a movement a few years ago by a few states that enacted laws saying that firearms that were manufactured and sold entirely within those respective states were exempt from federal laws. Of course, then you get into the extent of interstate commerce. The gun was made of steel. Were ALL the metals involved in the steel alloy mined, smelted, refined and alloyed within the state?I think Montana was one of the states that enacted such a law. Did a gun made in Montana contain even one screw or spring that came from another state? If so --> Interstate commerce. What are the grips made of? Wood? Was the tree grown in Montana, the logs sawn in Montana, and the grips made in Montana? If the grips were rubber or polymer, what was the source of the raw materials? If anything came from outside of Montana, that would open the door to saying the firearm was in interstate commerce.

Remember, the United States is supposed to be, at its heart, an assemblage of independent states. By way of the federal Constitution, the states comprising the United States have agreed that they will allow the federal government to regulate things that affect more than one state, i.e. interstate commerce. If you read new laws enacted by the Congress, a tremendous number of them begin with the statement that, "Because ___ is in or affects interstate commerce, therefore we take jurisdiction and we establish the following rules: ..."

 

[44 AMP]

The Constitution sets the groundwork with "regulate interstate commerce" but it is case law (in the 20th century) that has set the precedent that the Fed has authority over everything that moves, has moved or could move in interstate commerce.

Some of us believe that is an overbroad reach of power, but it is the law, and remains so, to date.

Now, in the shooting under discussion, as I see it, we have an interesting twist of logic and very narrow court rulings on very specific parts of the law.

The child who pulled the trigger plead guilty and that part is settled. The lawsuit seeks to punish others beyond that, for their perceived "negligence".

That case did not (yet) get its day in court. The court tossed it out, based on the PLCAA act. The PA appeal judges reversed that, saying the PLCAA was not protection, in this case.

They looked at those exceptions given in the PLCAA and determined that this case was one of them, and so could proceed.

HOWEVER, in order to do that, they accepted the claims of the suit AS FACT, when those facts had not been found to be facts in court.

What is the multiple of a Catch-22?? catch -44? -66? I don't know...
but what it seem to me to be is that a claim of a defective product or sales practice is just that, a claim, UNTIL ruled valid by a court. And that if the PLCAA tosses the suit, it cannot be ruled on by a court.

SO, it looks like the PA judges chose to allow the suit to go forward to see if the claim of defect will be found to be real in court. However, in order to do that, they had to accept the unproven claim as valid, as applied against the PLCAA as a defense.

They don't say the claim of a defect is valid, but they are acting as if it is a settled matter, but only against the use of the PLCAA as a defense.

Tricksy and dodgy to my way of thinking but I can (barely) follow the logic.

If I've got any of this significantly wrong, please, enlighten me.