PA appellate court rules that the Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act is unconstitutional
- Thread starter AR10ShooterinNC
- Start date
- Replies 11
- Views 1,176
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
oh that's not good
Anyone have the cliff notes? I don’t have time to read 63 pages right now but I’d love to know how they came to that decision. 
It's easy enough to go judge shopping and find someone who will rule in your favor on something like this. Doesn't matter. There are enough constitutional questions here that this will eventually wind up at the SCOTUS.
They said the law violates multiple constitutional amendments, including the commerce clause.Anyone have the cliff notes? I don’t have time to read 63 pages right now but I’d love to know how they came to that decision.
Last edited:
1. Congress does have the authority to declare certain subjects off limits to judicial review, and
2. Who'dathunk a lib judge would ever find any limitations at all of the Commerce Clause.
File under; Be Careful What You Wish For.
2. Who'dathunk a lib judge would ever find any limitations at all of the Commerce Clause.
File under; Be Careful What You Wish For.
The court finds that the PLCAA is unconstitutional. It claims to regulate interstate commerce, but is really tort litigation reform, a power not granted to the congress.
The court also finds that in this case the aggrieved party was never involved in any interstate commerce (neither the shooter or the victim owned the gun) and so their remedies at law can’t constitutionally be limited by an act to protect commerce. In an interesting twist, they take this from the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA which says in overturning the coverage mandate that congress may regulate commerce, but that it can not force people into commerce.
The court also finds that in this case the aggrieved party was never involved in any interstate commerce (neither the shooter or the victim owned the gun) and so their remedies at law can’t constitutionally be limited by an act to protect commerce. In an interesting twist, they take this from the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA which says in overturning the coverage mandate that congress may regulate commerce, but that it can not force people into commerce.
The power to regulate interstate commerce was added to promote and limit barriers to commerce. Frivolous lawsuits are a barrier to interstate commerce.
Who owned the gun is not relevant to suing the manufacturer/dealer...the manufacturer/dealer is still not responsible for committing the crime by engaging in commerce.
The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act does not force anyone into commerce unlike the ACA which required people to purchase healthcare or be punished with fines. It isn't interesting at all...just desperate. Hopefully the higher courts don't fall for it.
Who owned the gun is not relevant to suing the manufacturer/dealer...the manufacturer/dealer is still not responsible for committing the crime by engaging in commerce.
The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act does not force anyone into commerce unlike the ACA which required people to purchase healthcare or be punished with fines. It isn't interesting at all...just desperate. Hopefully the higher courts don't fall for it.
Two democratic judges and a Republican judge. Also an intermediate appellate court with a three judge panel.
I am so tired of this "punishment by process." Even if they do not win Springfield will be punished by the process of obtaining a judgment in their favor. The same thing is being used by DA's to punish people they cannot convict, like Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin. They know they cannot get a conviction but they will make you spend a significant sum of money and bail and a significant amount of time in obtaining an acquittal. There has got to be some judicial reform where some roadblocks are put in place to stop this. It used to be the grand jury system until it was bastardized by the court system.
I am so tired of this "punishment by process." Even if they do not win Springfield will be punished by the process of obtaining a judgment in their favor. The same thing is being used by DA's to punish people they cannot convict, like Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin. They know they cannot get a conviction but they will make you spend a significant sum of money and bail and a significant amount of time in obtaining an acquittal. There has got to be some judicial reform where some roadblocks are put in place to stop this. It used to be the grand jury system until it was bastardized by the court system.
My initial take on this is that it calls into question the broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause which is possibly the bigest overreach in the federal system.
If this stands the interstate commerce clause will begin to be peeled away; limiting federal power. Because of that it will go away; the PTB wont allow their influence and reach to be diminished.
Just my .02
If this stands the interstate commerce clause will begin to be peeled away; limiting federal power. Because of that it will go away; the PTB wont allow their influence and reach to be diminished.
Just my .02