Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules the PLCAA is Unconstitutional

Springfield XD 9mm

Courtesy Springfield Armory

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was designed to keep predatory trial attorneys and anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg from bankrupting America’s firearms industry through constant and repeated vexatious litigation. Congress recognized that an industry that manufactures legal, beneficial products and sells them to citizens who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms presented a juicy target for lawsuits designed to extract cash from gun makers and hobble their ability to conduct business.

The PLCAA, thus, has been a target of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex since it was enacted in 2005, but none of these attempts has yet succeeded. That, however, hasn’t stopped ambulance-chasing lawyers from repeatedly taking a crack at it.

The latest such effort comes from the Keystone State where the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that the PLCAA is unconstitutional.

[T]he Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and, therefore, without the force or effect of law.

The facts of the case are that in 2016, a 14-year-old unlawfully accessed a Springfield XD-9 pistol, dropped the magazine, deliberately pointed it at his 13-year-old “friend,” James Gustafson, and then pulled the trigger.

The friend removed the handgun’s clip and therefore believed it “was unloaded, because . . . there were no adequate indicators or warnings to inform him that a live round remained in the chamber.”

Gustafson died.

For the record, the XD-9 pistol has a loaded chamber indicator, but the young scholar who picked up the gun ignored it, and then broke all of Col. Cooper’s safety rules.

Springfield XD loaded chamber indicator

Courtesy Springfield Armory

In short, the pistol worked properly and exactly as it was designed to do. Not that any of that mattered to the plaintiffs.

They alleged a design defect, because the gun lacked a safety feature to disable it from firing without the clip attached.

Lack of a magazine disconnect is a feature, not a bug. There are very good reasons why most makers of semi-automatic handguns don’t include them.

I bought a handgun almost 30 years ago that had a disconnect and I learned to hate it. It required extra force to insert a magazine, and sometimes a mag wouldn’t unexpectedly drop free, empty or full.

Worse, while searching for the right holster, I ran across one that could press the mag release, leaving me with a handgun that wouldn’t fire. It would eject the magazine a fraction of an inch…just enough to engage the disconnect, but not enough to be visually or tactilely obvious (the handgun did have the advantage of being so ergonomically right in my hand that I could point shoot with fair accuracy right out of the box). Scratch another holster.

Lack of a disconnect has been one of the things I’ve looked for in every semi-auto handgun purchase ever since.

Consider making similar arguments for other products:

I took the cordless drill off the charger. How was I to know it would still run when not plugged in to the wall socket?

I put the car in neutral. It should have automatically engaged the parking brake so the car wouldn’t roll down the hill and run over that kid. Why didn’t it?

The court should have automatically and separately notified me that I was supposed to come to court to contest that speeding ticket. 

The computer company should have designed my laptop to detect when my underaged son was downloading porn and automatically block him.

Speeding wasn’t my fault. Ford should have installed a governor that would read speed limit signs on the road and slow me down.

Sadly, if the plaintiffs in this case had only argued that the lack of a magazine disconnect was the only problem, we could laugh and anticipate the state Supreme Court slapping these idiots down with a 2×4. But they didn’t stop there. They attacked the very constitutionality of the PLCAA.

The Gustafsons responded that the PLCAA does not apply here. In the alternative, they argued the Act is unconstitutional, because it (1) overrides Tenth Amendment principles of federalism, (2) cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause, 5 and (3) violates the Fifth Amendment.

The court’s convoluted, uh, reasoning is bizarre, even for an anti-rights jurisdiction. In effect, they’ve said the PLCAA doesn’t protect Springfield because the written law doesn’t describe the exact chain of events in this case. And even when it does protect them — because the gun was criminally misused — it really doesn’t because Bostock v. Clayton County protects classes that aren’t specifically mentioned in the written Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Even with extra coffee, I have trouble wrapping my head around that. The Pennsylvania court dismisses the protection due to a volitional criminal act by a third party as “toothless” because all criminal acts are volitional.

WTF?

In a hypothetically sane world, that court would have looked at what it had just written and ordered a hearing for itself for adjudication of mental incompetence. Certainly on appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should do so.

But in invoking the Tenth Amendment, the court has this to say:

If Congress can declare, as it did in Section 7901 of the PLCAA, that filing a petition or complaint in a state court to vindicate state rights substantially burdens interstate commerce, then what remains for the States to govern under the Tenth Amendment? Reforming the judicial systems of the States from top to bottom in such a manner goes far afield from the enumerated, limited powers of Congress. This is definitely not the vision that Hamilton, Madison, and the other Founders had in mind when they authored the Constitution. The Federal Government’s claim that filing a state lawsuit, based on a state tort, which arose within the boundaries of that state, is private conduct rising to the level of interstate commerce must fail. The Commerce Clause simply does not stretch that far, and the Tenth Amendment forbids it.

On this I can agree. And it invalidates every federal “gun control” law on the books. Not to mention pretty much every other law not pertaining specifically to federally held lands and it employees.

Properly applied, that reasoning invalidates 99.9% of what the federal government does. Seemingly without realizing it, the Pennsylvania Superior Court just tossed the concept of incorporation.(Although I disagree with the court’s assessment of Hamilton’s “vision.” There’s a reason he objected to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.)

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. On the bright side, Pennsylvanians still interested in liberty can now use that same Tenth Amendment federalism and non-incorporation argument against gun control laws…if this ruling is allowed to stand. Which, we can all hope, it will not.

comments

  1. avatar Ron says:

    And this is the reason why it’s important to stack the courts with constitutionalists like Trump has been doing. Amy Barret is the best of the three so far in my opinion.

    1. avatar A. C. says:

      The fight over the Federal government overriding the State governments in just about every kind of commerce, not just guns really picked up during Roosevelt’s administration, and his administration drove through a number of laws which were intended to help recover from the Depression (but didn’t. But that’s another issue) and threatened to pack the Supreme Court if he (and the Democratic party) didn’t get their way on the issue of federal law overriding state law in areas like commerce. Sound familiar? The Supremes backed down and gave Roosevelt the decision he wanted.

      So if this reaches the Supreme Court, the strict constitutionalists may not side with Federal law overriding State law, but their decision would be more consistent with the Constitution. Be careful what you wish for.

      In either case, support Amy Coney Barrett. Nobody the Democrats would nominate would be better.

  2. avatar Mad Max says:

    Since when does a state court have jurisdiction over Federal law?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      not a defect when it was incorporated into the design…

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Regardless of the actual facts in the case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court doesn’t have the authority to rule the Federal PLCAA unconstitutional; that is the purview of the Federal courts.

        1. avatar A. C. says:

          Is the Pennsylvania state constitution in conflict with the U.S. Constitution on this? I assumed that the Pennsylvania Superior Court was referring to the U.S. Constitution, but it’s not clear in the article.

        2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Here’s what the PA State Constitution says:

          The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
          — Declaration of Rights, Section 21

          I guess this ruling is “technically” in compliance with this statement. They don’t even question whether they have the authority to interfere with that right. Kinda like if you eat a donut in the dark, you didn’t see the calories so you can’t be getting fat.

        3. The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution is supreme, not the federal government nor the “union” it represents so a law not “made in Pursuance thereof” is not law at all. Couldn’t a State court nullify a federal act on those grounds?

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Design defects are a constant source of litigation. For example, the Ford Pinto cases were design defect cases. The difference here is that guns are designed to fire bullets, and bullets are deadly. The design did not fail; the gun operated as intended. This fact was a major impetus to the federal law protection, i.e., no matter how a gun is designed, it will still fire bullets. California has been trying for years to make them idiot proof, without success. That is why we have external manual safeties (apart from the trigger dongle), loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, and drop safety requirements.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…no matter how a gun is designed, it will still fire bullets. California has been trying for years to make them idiot proof, without success.”

          That’s because California also keeps producing better idiots.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Another viewpoint:

          “The thinking is the officer will hopefully be able to fight long enough to drop the magazine, then let him take the gun while going for a back-up weapon. It has happened once that I know of (suspect was shot in the face by a .357 snub nose the officer carried on his body armor, officer was uninjured).”

        3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          SAM I AM — Isn’t “better idiots” a contradiction of terms? Shouldn’t it be BIGGER idiots?!

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Shouldn’t it be BIGGER idiots?!”

          Well, yeah…you got something there.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Without exception every court has the authority to enforce the Constitution. That is the way our system of laws works, and has worked since the Founders invented it.

      It is also why such cases climb up the ladder of courts until they reach the Supreme Court. Which will now have five or six Second amendment friendly justices waiting for this bullshit ruling by a lower court.

      That’s if it gets that high. There are still appeals in the state courts from the Superior Court level.

      American Civics 101, circa 1789-1792 and as later amended, not a new thing.

      1. avatar Debbie W. says:

        enuf…Take off your above the fray, self awarded pompous scholarly hat and put back on your propeller cap. Your contribution to the USSC is a minus ZERO. You slander and libel the POTUS while you enjoy the Freedom to do things you could not have been able to do under a hilliary rotten clintoon presidency. Really bozo, your nauseating self serving ignorance of politics is to America what a drunk farting gasbag is to fine dining. You fit the mold of a knee jerk finger pointing jackazz who would sue Bugs Bunny for eating a carrot.

        TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Stop being such a trump bimbo

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Stop being a biden whore, hannibal.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        False. The State Courts have no jurisdiction over laws enacted by Congress. That would be called nullification.

        1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          I don’t think that’s quite right.

          Where a Federal Law violates the Constitution it is automatically null and void. Thus a State is not bound to obey such laws. This would also apply to laws which exceed the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

          But when a law does fall within the Constitutional powers, then the State does not have any authority to override that law.

          In this case, the PLCAA addresses one particular area of how the 2nd Amendment prohibition on government action applies. Despite the court’s pure gainsaying “these are not the droids you’re looking for” argument, it is fully Constitutional and helps to define what infringing looks like when it comes to the area of lawfare.

        2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          Not false at all…. It is the job of the lower courts to rule on violations of laws that may or may not be in conflict with the constitution and make judgments accordingly. If there is disagreement with the said ruling, lower court decisions eventually get handed off to higher courts and eventually the SCOTUS.

          While I disagree with the ruling entirely, (though the argument that the PLCAA violates the 10th is a cute thought exercise,) this is an excellent example of how the courts were designed to work. The findings of the PA Superior are bizarre at best, but the system is working as intended on this one…

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Both you are absolutely wrong. A State Court can use the US Constitution to invalidate State laws but a State Court cannot invalidate a Federal Law. It is called Federal Supremecy. Only the Federal Courts can invalidate Federal Law. Otherwise States could nullify acts of Congress. If you think a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional then you go to through the Federal Court system.

        4. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          Way to miss my point entirely, smart guy….

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          No I didn’t miss your point at all. State courts cannot rule on Constitutionality of a Federal statute. They have no jurisdiction. You don’t seem to understand that. Otherwise, all George Wallace would have had to do was have the Alabama Supreme Court declare the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional. That would have fixed things, right? I will repeat a State Court has no authority to rule on a Federal Statute.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          I going to make easy for you to understand Springfield will not appeal to the Federal Court the Pennsylvania Court’s ruling on the Constitutionality of PLAA. The will appeal on jurisdiction. What will go forward is not PLAA but a State Court’s ability to declare Federal Statute unconstitutional. Now do you understand what you got wrong?

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          It’s called “concurrent jurisdiction”.

          I’d suggest a perusal of Claflin v. Houseman (1876).

          State courts can and do rule on Federal law and, in fact, are legally bound to uphold Federal Law which, by definition, requires them to render judgement on that law which can then be appealed to the Federal Court System for further review.

          See also, Testa v. Katt (1947)

          Both these cases are SCOTUS cases.

          In sum:

          “Subject to congressional provision to the contrary, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all the classes of cases and controversies enumerated in Article III, except suits between states, those to which the United States is a party, those to which a foreign state is a party, and those within the traditional admiralty jurisdiction.”

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        The proper course would be for the lower court to rule on its jurisdictional issues the relevant law but a Constitutional Challenge to the federal law belongs in federal court. So the plaintiffs should have had to be the ones to appeal. We fought a war over whether states could nullify federal laws based on the claim of being unconstitutional. They lost.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We fought a war over whether states could nullify federal laws based on the claim of being unconstitutional. They lost.”

          On the battlefield. Later the legislative battle.

          The plaintiffs should have taken the matter to the Supreme Court before the plaintiffs lost their representation. The issue was not constitutionally settled until December 6, 1865.

        2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          They lost, but their premises (NOT their motives) were sound…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They lost, but their premises (NOT their motives) were sound…”

          Uh, oh. It is not polite to insist people accept fact over truth.

        4. avatar Ing says:

          To paraphrase a popular progtard slogan, No Facts, No Truth.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To paraphrase a popular progtard slogan, No Facts, No Truth.”

          “We believe truth over facts.”
          – J.Biden

        6. avatar Ing says:

          Paraphrase wasn’t the right word. That is indeed the saying I was thinking of…to which anyone with a functioning brain could reply that if the bare facts on the ground refute it, what you’ve got is wishful thinking, not truth. No facts, no truth.

    3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The Pennsylvania Superior Court may discover that they are overruled by the district or even SCOTUS and should stick to cases in their purview.

      1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

        This can be appealed to the en banc 3rd Circuit Court. It’s a 14 Judge Court that is 8-6 GOP-Dem Split. 1 of the Clinton Appointees is SHOCKINGLY Pro-2A.

        However, these wreckless lawfare based SLAPP Lawsuits are designed to bankrupt the Gun-Industry over time, even if they win the Appeals, by the antigunners like Bloomberg via disrupting $Cash-Flow, derailing operating and manufacturing tasks, reducing profit margins after taxes, and forcing layoffs that prohibit business.

    4. avatar Ben Bow says:

      since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, which expressly requires state judges to adhere to the federal laws and constitution.

      Your question exposes your ignorance of the constitution. Perhaps a remedial course, that focuses on something other than the Bill of Rights would be in order.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        Either there are some words missing from this reply or there are words and phrases being used or understood in non-standard ways. (For example: “jurisdiction over” and “adhere to”.) Not sure which it is. As a result, this comment makes no sense to me.

    5. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The purpose is to have at least an advisory precedent when the case goes to the Federal court.

  3. avatar FedUp says:

    Your Honor, I object.
    State government doesn’t have rights, it has powers.
    And you have greatly overstepped them.

  4. avatar Biff says:

    So if people that get shot can sue gun companies, why can’t people that get hurt by a DUI sue the alcohol industry or car companies?

    I would be willing to bet a substantial amount of an alcohol manufacturers revenue comes mainly from alcoholics that not only wreck their own health, but cause a large percentage of vehicular homicides.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Anyone may file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason at any time. That’s the American Way. Includes makers of booze and cars and operators of bars and restaurants.

      If you think a movie poster down at the metro-plex is overly revealing of the female character’s assets, you may file a law suit against the company that produced the paer for the poster and the ink for the printing. You will lose, but in America, you may file the lawsuit.

      Doesn’t mean you get to win, and the PLCAA is a law denying those wins in certain circumstances.

      It needs to climb higher in the courts until this wrongful ruling is overturned.

      1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

        Anyone may file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason at any time. That’s the American Way.
        Justice is supposed to be blind, yet all courts are now politicized. And you think that’s the American Way?

        Our (overly) litigious society is not a strength. The fact that we have to wait 8 years for the USSC to decide that a case is moot, because a 20+ year old law was changed at the last minute, is asinine, and by no means Justice.

        The only winners in our current judicial system is Government (infinite resources and can delay as long as necessary) and Lawyers. The average Citizen has NO CHANCE against either, and that is NOT the American Way. Of, For, and By The People……….

        Go peddle what you think America is, or isn’t, elsewhere.

        1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.
          — Ecclesiastes 8:11

          We are seeing this proven in real time throughout 2020.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We are seeing this proven in real time throughout 2020.”

          We have seen this proven throughout recorded human history, and until this day.

          It is the swiftness and certainty of consequence that establishes the deterrent effect (if any) of law.

        3. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          True. But many people are woefully ignorant of history, thus the need to repeat the lesson. Some seem to be learning, but it does not seem like nearly enough to avert the higher level lessons.

        4. avatar enuf says:

          300BlackoutFan says:

          Go peddle what you think America is, or isn’t, elsewhere.
          ——————————————

          No.

          There is little to nothing that I can do to repair your ignorance. But that is entirely unimportant to me anyway.

          I do not like how outlandishly sue-happy my fellow citizens tend to be, I simply do not pretend it is not the reality. Americans may, can and do sue for damned near any and every reason real or imagined. That’s bad but, again, it is the reality from Day 1.

          By the way one of the single most sue-happy morons in our Republic is the current President fo the USofA. Mostly he has filed lawsuits to cheat people out of the pay they earned. He’s burned an awful lot of small businesses and contractors that way.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “By the way one of the single most sue-happy morons in our Republic is the current President fo the USofA. Mostly he has filed lawsuits to cheat people out of the pay they earned. He’s burned an awful lot of small businesses and contractors that way.”

          Simply NYC hardball business doings. Don’t like the game, find another arena. Fact is, buffoon businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump defeated 22 other candidates for president (7 Dims, 15 Republicrats)…all without “lawfare” involved.

          Each empire had its national sport: Rome had Gladiators; US has Lawfare.

          Some people look at the world and ask, “Why?” DJT looks at the world and asks, “Why not?”.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So long as this BS of suing just to force the court costs and thereby bankrupting a legitimate company is allowed to exist, we are losing. Let me tell you how “loser pays” would work after a few examples. When Soros or Bloomberg back a lawsuit with no chance of success, there would be a fight to see who was allowed to defend for free, since if you win (which they near always do), you submit a bill for several hundred million dollars. If the morons are directly involved they are really screwed, more likely the fall guys they hired are on the hook, they sure won’t do it again! The practice would end right quick, not that anyone would care, because it would no longer threaten legitimate businesses.

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          PA is a loser pays state.

  5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    News flash. The courts also have said blacks born in this country aren’t citizens. And are the slaves of white people. At the time of the Taney decision there were tens of thousands of free blacks voting, creating businesses, living their lives.
    You can never truly rely on the courts to protect you. They never have in the past.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “If Congress can declare, as it did in Section 7901 of the PLCAA, that filing a petition or complaint in a state court to vindicate state rights substantially burdens interstate commerce, then what remains for the States to govern under the Tenth Amendment?”

    This is the very essence of ” The Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States”, where the Commerce Clause was used to extend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the states. The ruling turned on a toothpick, really, a toothpick. If anything in use at a location denying equal rights to any person, was obtained as a result of interstate commerce, the Commerce Clause applied, making the issue a federal matter, and all federal laws apply to the condition.

    This Pennsylvania ruling may be relatively easy to defeat on federal appeal, but the ride remains the punishment.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      “the ride remains the punishment”

      Agreed. The harm is in having to spend time and money defending against an unjust lawsuit.

    2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      That decision like many that support it are BS. The Constitution gives Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Not everything that interstate commerce touches. Yes that complicates this case, but the interpretation that has been used to give congress unlimited power has also been misused to the detriment of the peoples freedom.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The Constitution gives Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.”

        Yes, but the meaning of the clause is determined by the US Supreme Court; “history and tradition”, and all that. The Commerce Clause was of great concern to the framers of the constitution.

      2. avatar Bruce says:

        Think about it a minute. Is the case about attacking a PA company that only manufactures and sells guns, and is based in PA? Or is it about a company based in another state (IL?) that sells firearms throughout the rest of the country (in my case, in MT)? We all know the answer here – Springfield isn’t based in PA, or manufacture there, sells firearms throughout the entire country, etc. The lawsuit therefore attempts to interfere with interstate commerce, and is thus preempted by this statute Constitutionally based on the Interstate Commerce Clause.

        Not even close.

  7. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    So someone in PA needs to file with the court to toss out all firearms laws, stating the precedent set by the superior court. That can’t say it applies only to cases they like. I mean they could but it would expose the bias, which a court should not have. The best way to get this tossed is to have an active case sitting right behind it using their reasoning against them. The appeals court will see this, and toss the case because they don’t want the other case to win.

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      No, not toss firearms laws (though that should happen), toss unjust “justices”. “Shall not be infringed” is the supreme law of the land, and these “justices” have directly contradicted those simple words.

      (I’m working hard to refrain from swearing at this bald-faced lawlessness.)

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The real problem in our nation is lawfare and our unnecessarily complicated legal system. If we could eliminate those two GINORMOUS problems, then we would not need the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The real problem in our nation is lawfare and our unnecessarily complicated legal system.”

      The law system is designed to be abused, else what is the point? If you can’t contort words and meanings, you need a different lawyer, or a different system entirely. “When I use a word,….’it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
      – H. Dumpty, Esq.

  9. avatar Geoff "Tampa Bay Bolts - Stanly Cup Champs" PR says:

    {Don LaFrance movie voice guy mode /on}

    “Imagine world where Hillary won the the 2016 election and the SCOTUS balance was now 6-3 Leftist and this court ruling happened…”

    I guess we’re gonna find out how the new SCOTUS justices feel about the 2A now…

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Imagine a world where Biden wins the election and the SCOTUS balance is now 9-6 Democrat Activists…

      1. avatar my2cents says:

        Fed up. Just to play devil’s advocate Biden has not come out in favor of packing the SC. The Democrats would be fools to even try as they cannot guarantee that their party will stay in power. Kind of like how getting rid of the Filibuster has cost them dearly.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        No President has the power to “pack” the Supreme Court. It has been tried and failed a couple of times. Most infamously by FDR.

        The Supreme Court has had different numbers of justices starting at six, at times and seven, nine and ten. Congress has moved the number up and down but it’s been at nine for so long the very notion of messing with it angers the entire judiciary and most of the population. Any President who woul dtry to put forth a cort packing Bill would see said Bill soundly rejected.

        It ain’t going to happen.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Any President who woul dtry to put forth a cort packing Bill would see said Bill soundly rejected.”

          It isn’t the “putting forth” that matters, but the “siging of”. The Dims are setting the stage for rule by legislature, and would have a pliant president to enact court packing as law.

        2. avatar enuf is enough says:

          “…the very notion of messing with it angers the entire judiciary and most of the population.”

          There ya go! enuf speaks for most of the population as he links his name to the party that wants to pack the courts, and he says it without a hint of irony.

          The democratic party will NEVER do that says every fool, they just say it to sound cool.

  10. avatar Frank Groth says:

    In this matter we see exactly what many constitutionalists, and the president, warn us against…. judges usurping the power of the legislative branch to fit narrow political or social agendas.

    If you are in Pennsylvania, if you believe that civil rights are equal for all or are not rights at all, that gun rights are civil rights, and you are not voting Republican… Red Forman had a name for that.

  11. avatar Bake says:

    I didn’t know Pennsylvania imported Hawaiian judges to make the important rulings.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      We also have a man pretending to be a woman, previously employed as a pediatric psychiatrist, serving as the Secretary of Health. So nothing surprises me here.

  12. avatar 2aguy says:

    Vote Trump…..Vote for every spineless, weak, cowardly, back stabbing republican rino in the Senate…..if we want the courts as a back stop to this crap, Trump needs to win with a Republican controlled Senate with enough republicans to defeat the squishes romney, collins and murkowski…….the democrats want to get rid of protections for gun makers and gun stores so they can turn loose every left wing, anti-gun lawyer in the country….then they will also use the courts to make every local towns anti-gun laws Constitutional……

    Vote, this country is at risk.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      I agree that Trump has placed this Republic at grave risk. The threat from within has never been higher up the ladder of political power and never more severe than at this moment.

      Trump represents a real and present danger to the security of the United States.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        “The threat from within has never been higher up the ladder of political power and never more severe…”

        You must’ve been asleep during the Obama presidency.

        1. avatar enuf is enough says:

          Ask enuf why President Trump “represents a real and present danger” and all he can come up with is the Trump has loans. He says this as his candidate’s family has received millions and billions of dollars from Ukraine, Russia and China.

          The most recent revelation has Biden’s son receiving a $3.5 million dollar wire transfer from a Russia mayor/billionaire.

  13. avatar Darkman says:

    I’ve been saying on this and other sites that the Judicial Branch of Government is far more dangerous than either one of the other branches. When Lower court Judges are allowed to rule on the Constitutionality of any issue it only allows for the mucking up of the court systems and is used as a tactic to attack laws groups of people dislike. Any and all rulings on the Constitutionality of a law Must Require that the Supreme Court address the case and Rule on it’s merits with vote of Yea or Nay. Without Right of Refusal due to the fact that making such rulings was one of the main reasons the Supreme Court was given it’s Authority. The Idea that they can refuse to address issues of Constitutionality of a Law is repugnant to very reason it was Formed.
    Keep Your Powder Dry

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “When Lower court Judges are allowed to rule on the Constitutionality of any issue it only allows for the mucking up of the court systems and is used as a tactic to attack laws groups of people dislike.”

      You would be unhappy should a “lower court” rules that any limit on RTKBA is unconstitutional, at both the state and federal level?

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Yes knowing Full Well the case would only get pushed to another court followed by another court and so on. Allowing for a delay on a Final decision. All cases on the Constitutionality of a Civil Right Must be decided by the Supreme Court and they Must be required to answer on the question without delay. That is the main purpose of the Supreme Court. Having watched cases on Civil Rights languish in the court system for decades with No clear decision accomplishes nothing, but a delayed Right. As it stands today the Court System is nothing more than another “Swamp” in need of a serious draining.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “All cases on the Constitutionality of a Civil Right Must be decided by the Supreme Court and they Must be required to answer on the question without delay.”

          “Must” ??? According to what?

          While I agree the SC seems to be seriously uninterested in working a full year, if every “constitutional” question had to wait for the SC, little other work would be done there, and even the constitutional questions would not see resolution for years, if not decades. Even if the SC reviewed and heard testimony 24/7, it is unlilkely every case brought would be reviewed timely. More likely, cases would simply be rejected out of hand in order to manage the load at all.

          If you look at the requirements in the Constitution, nothing is said about how SC rulings would be enforced, a deliberate design. While such a situation is untenable, it was the only the SC itself which declared that their opinions were the final word on any issue before the SC. Andrew Jackson highlighted the impotence of the court in 1832, where in the SC ruled a State could not invalidate federal law; Jackson thought different and said so.

  14. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    What was the split of the Court’s Ruling? Funny how this comes about after Remington Arms is going out of Business.

    Leftist, Communist China Loving, Scumbag, Pig-F***er Democrat Party Billionaire Donors have their Army of Leftist Pigs on the Bench just writing their Leftist, Maoist filth into the law. This is also why the Democrat Party is so hell-bent on COURT PACKING, regardless of whether Barrett is put on the Court.

    LEFTIST JUDGES WRITING LAW OF THEIR FILTHY LEFTIST DICTATION!!

    It’s not JUST Michael Bloomberg…… Tim Cook, Tom Steyer, Sundar Pachai, Eric Schmidt, Bill Gates, and of course, George Soros, and the whole Cabal of DC Beltway involved with BIG TECH in Silicon Valley and DC Beltway Defense Contractors want the Gun Manufacturers out of business.

    Big Tech and Government Defense Contractors want their ‘Smart Guns Technicians to come to fruition. Googlefacebookinstagrammicrosoftapple can’t put ‘Smart Guns’ out there unless the American People are disarmed of actual firearms.

  15. avatar Hippi says:

    the picture is NOT the loaded chamber indicator on an XD it is a striker indicator meaning its cocked.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Taking a quick look at either one would’ve sufficed.

      Also, I would normally have said this ruling is why everyone hates lawyers, but we should probably be directing our ire at the judges who make these BS rulings. They’re far more dangerous.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    “Qualified immunity for firearms manufacturers is unconstitutional!” says a black-robed scvmbag with absolute judicial immunity.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      It’s the same manner in which you have Democrat Judges down to the County Level, rewriting Federal and State Election Laws, Subversivly, to incorporate Mail-In Voter Fraud to help Biden. The Leftist Word, via the Dictation of The Left.

      It happened here in Ohio, where I live, via a Democrat Judge on the Franklin County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas extending the Election Deadline for Ballot Harvesting by 7 days after November 3rd and throwing out Signature Matching.

  17. avatar The TTAG Shadow says:

    In the picture, that is a cocked striker indicator, not a loaded chamber indicator. However, the pistol does have a loaded chamber indicator on top of the slide. It sticks up above the surface of the slide and can be felt if there is a cartridge in the chamber. Anyone who has an XD should know that. Obviously, the author of the article does not.

  18. avatar CentralVirginian says:

    Screw these people, these retards are the reason you cant buy corded blinds anymore. The gun functioned as intended, the parents did not. This trend to claim the world should be bubble wrapped and padded and that every product needs to be designed so that you don’t need to pay attention to your child needs to end.

    1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      Go job Virginia. Yours is the best comment so far!

  19. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Hard for me to see how the state court has any jurisdiction on federal law but I’m no lawyer. I do know that the Springfield XD9 has not only the aforementioned pin at the back of the slide but also a second loaded chamber indicator in the form of a small hinged block of metal on the top of the slide that protrudes above the slide at the breech end of the barrel indicating a round has been chambered when the slide is in battery. This is why between this, our Governor and his thing that no one wants to open any sort of business in Pennsylvania.

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Springfield XD9 has not only the aforementioned pin at the back of the slide…

      That is solely a striker cocked indicator. It can be cocked even when there is no round in the chamber.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      “Hard for me to see how the state court has any jurisdiction on federal law”

      Of course it has “jurisdiction.” No court can follow an unconstitutional law.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        For a guy who claims to be a lawyer you clearly get this one wrong. The place to challenge PLCAA is Federal Court. If you think a State Court can invalidate a federal statute why don’t you run off to Wyoming and get the NFA nullified?

        I guess George Wallace missed his chance to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act tossed by the Alabama Supreme Court. /sarc.

  20. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

    >>”Properly applied, that reasoning invalidates 99.9% of what the federal government does.”

    You mean to say that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) is in fact a limit on Federal authority?

    Somebody give this boy a megaphone so he can spread the word. We’ve been bamboozled and our States have bent over and violated their charter with the People all for Federal funding.

  21. avatar sound awake says:

    another 20 thousand votes for trump in pa
    100 thousand nationwide
    in the bag

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      It’s hard to see how Trump or anyone could survive the biggest propaganda machine operation in the history of the world. With TV and the Internet, it makes Germany’s Ministry of Propaganda look small and ineffective by comparison.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        I’m both amazed and gratified by how many people are resisting the agitprop. Without their thumb on the scale our system of government would be far more healthy. Even with all their advantages, they’re still not able to achieve much more than a stalemate.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “I’m both amazed and gratified by how many people are resisting the agitprop.”

          You have more confidence in the intelligence of the average American than I do. I think they’re swallowing the bullsh!t hook, line and sinker.

  22. avatar strych9 says:

    “You got your PLCAA in my Civil Rights Act”

    “Nah, Bro, you got your Civil Rights Act in my PLCAA!”

    *SMH*

  23. avatar Top says:

    Makes about as much sense as “Why didn’t Ford’s car design prevent me from crossing the line and striking that other car while I had my head down texting a friend?”

    What was a 15-year-old doing with a loaded handgun, especially if he didn’t understand how it worked and that pointing it at his friend was a very bad idea? There’s much, MUCH more to address here with this case than Springfield’s design of what is ALWAYS a lethal instrument. But, then again, it’s always the Liberal point of view to absolve the person of any responsibility and blame the object instead. In their mind humans are always incapable of accountability just so long as they continue to vote blue.

  24. avatar Need to take these lib judges to court, class action civil in courts for violating 2A. says:

    People do stupid crap all the time, see The Darwin awards! They eradicated themselves from the rest of civilization one by one! You can’t legislate that. If that were the case cars would be outlawed along with most modern conveniences that people refuse or choose to ignore the safe use of same!

  25. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    i’m as big a proponent of “they’ve completely bastardized the commerce clause power” as there ever was, but this is precisely what its for, so a single state can go demolishing a national industry with its legal system

    good luck PA, i’m sure the feds will really give a hoot that you declared their law unconstitutional

  26. avatar possum says:

    Shall not be infringed

  27. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    How exactly does a state court have any say over federal law?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Why wouldn’t it? There’s only one country, not two. If a law is unconstitutional, does a state court have to follow it just because it’s Federal? C’mon, man.

      FYI, I think this court’s ruling is totally FOS. But the court had the power to do what it did. And it should be reversed.

  28. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    Whatever mill this judge recieved his law degree from should be sued for not producing a competent attorney/judge.

    A layman has entirely more common sense than many of these degreed individuals.

  29. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Just to piss off you TactiCoolFool folk, I would point out that while magazine disconnect safeties have their disadvantages, they can prevent many of the most common accidental discharges. The same is true for manual safeties. I can attest that a manual safety saved my life (actually saved the lives of two police officers) when an imbecilic, possibly homicidal cop, repeatedly pulled the trigger on my third generation Smith and Wesson pistol while it was pointed at my genitals. This meter maid had taken exception to my driving my daughter to school. Since my daughter is a dead ringer for the Terminatrix that was kicking Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ass in T-3, and has a similar disagreeable disposition, he concluded that I am far too ugly to be her father and therefore must be a prevert. The cop in question was carrying a Sig Sauer P-226. His police report documented that the “decocking lever was in the down position,” indicating that he was confusing the functions of my pistol with his pistol.

    I can honestly say that the manual safety on my pistol saved the lives of two police officers. If the safety had not been on, the sight of this moron’s finger on the trigger would have provoked me to give the cop who was standing behind me poised with Taser a free ride under a passing dump truck and the cop who was trying to shoot me would have been treated to an epic ass kicking.

    Incidentally, this cowardly cop later endured that a mentally disturbed subject got killed when he became so frightened that he dropped his Taser to draw his pistol because he wouldn’t trust his fellow officers armed with a .45 and an AR-15 to cover him.

  30. So the problem mainly rested on a compromised court system. Obviously stacked with Socialist LibTARD Communist Judges who are hostile to the U.S. Constitution-Bill of Rights (most notably, The 2nd Amendment.) This is why all state and local elections by DNC LibTARDs NEED to be challenged! Or you get unconstitutional and unbalanced $!#t like this…Or I should say, you suddenly find yourself living in NJ/NY/MD/CT/MA/NY, NOT PA. …..

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email