PLCAA Unconstitutional per PA Superior court

[Bruenor]

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/ ... 689518.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only portions of the PLCAA that do not offend the Constitution are
its findings and purposes (in Section 7901) and a few definitions (in Section
7903). These provisions have no force on their own. Accordingly, Congress
would not have enacted the constitutional provisions of the PLCAA standing
alone. The rest of the PLCAA is not severable; the Act is unconstitutional in
its entirety.
Hence, the trial court erred by holding that the PLCAA is constitutional
and by sustaining the Gun-Industry Defendants’ preliminary objections to the
complaint.
In sum, the constitutional safeguards that override the PLCAA are the
structural pillars of American government. These principles ensure that local
matters remain under the local authority of the States, and they prevent the
Federal Government from becoming all powerful. While such principles may
be “less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom
than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments,” NFIB
567 U.S. at 707, (Scalia, J. dissenting), federalism is fundamental to liberty.
It permits the 50 Experiments in Democracy, which the People perform every
day in their statehouses and courthouses across this Nation. Congressional
tort-reform bills, like the PLCAA, have no place within that system; tort law
and statutes reforming it are an exercise of police power reserved to the
States under the Tenth Amendment.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this Opinion and for entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of the Gustafsons
and against Springfield, Inc.

Case background

In this appeal, we must decide whether the trial court erred by finding
that a federal statute, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005
(“the PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903, bars a state lawsuit arising from the
shooting death of Mark and Leah Gustafson’s 13-year-old son, James Robert
(“J.R.”) Gustafson. The Gustafsons claim that the PLCAA should not apply to
their lawsuit or, alternatively, that it is unconstitutional.
On March 20, 2016, J.R. Gustafson and his 14-year-old friend visited a
Westmoreland County home owned by Joshua Hudec. J.R.’s friend obtained
Mr. Hudec’s Springfield Armory, semiautomatic handgun, model XD-9. See
Gustafsons’ Complaint at 5. 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.”
“Thinking the handgun was unloaded, the boy pulled the trigger.”
The chambered bullet fired and unintentionally killed J.R. The District Attorney
of Westmoreland County charged J.R.’s friend with general homicide under
the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. The friend eventually pleaded delinquent to
involuntary manslaughter2 in juvenile court.

[FormerNavy]

Yeah I'm not a lawyer but I'm wondering if this case can be removed to federal court since it involves a federal statute. If so, I don't see this decision holding up.

[JimE]

No legal eagle either, but since when can a state court overrule a Federal law ?

[WY_Not]

Why not? They are doing it with medical marijuana laws. They have been doing so for a long time with regards to the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but those two come to mind quickly.

No legal eagle either, but since when can a state court overrule a Federal law ?

[JustaShooter]

Why not? They are doing it with medical marijuana laws. They have been doing so for a long time with regards to the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but those two come to mind quickly.

This is very different - in the situations you describe, the states are ignoring Federal law and the Constitution. In this case, they are attempting to overrule a Federal law and declare it unconstitutional.

[WY_Not]

Potayto, potahto. The one inevitably leads to the other.

Why not? They are doing it with medical marijuana laws. They have been doing so for a long time with regards to the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but those two come to mind quickly.

This is very different - in the situations you describe, the states are ignoring Federal law and the Constitution. In this case, they are attempting to overrule a Federal law and declare it unconstitutional.

[Mr. Glock]

The judge is probably thinking about the election, and a Biden win. That would change the Fed Gov response to the case.

I’m all for states rights, but you can’t pick and choose that road just depending on how you as the judge feelz about the issue at hand.

[FormerNavy]

Why not? They are doing it with medical marijuana laws. They have been doing so for a long time with regards to the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but those two come to mind quickly.

This is very different - in the situations you describe, the states are ignoring Federal law and the Constitution. In this case, they are attempting to overrule a Federal law and declare it unconstitutional.

I guess I would have thought only a federal court could declare a federal law unconstitutional. But again I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

[JustaShooter]

Why not? They are doing it with medical marijuana laws. They have been doing so for a long time with regards to the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but those two come to mind quickly.

This is very different - in the situations you describe, the states are ignoring Federal law and the Constitution. In this case, they are attempting to overrule a Federal law and declare it unconstitutional.

I guess I would have thought only a federal court could declare a federal law unconstitutional. But again I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

Exactly my thought.

[schmieg]

I guess I would have thought only a federal court could declare a federal law unconstitutional. But again I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

Exactly my thought.

I'm waiting for one of these liberal judges to declare the Constitution or parts of it unconstitutional.

[WY_Not]

Don't give them any ideas.

I guess I would have thought only a federal court could declare a federal law unconstitutional. But again I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

Exactly my thought.

I'm waiting for one of these liberal judges to declare the Constitution or parts of it unconstitutional.

[bignflnut]

I guess I would have thought only a federal court could declare a federal law unconstitutional. But again I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

Exactly my thought.

The States created the federal government via the federal constitution. The States are actually the sovereigns here...the feds work for the States. Of course the States get to call BS on federal laws/regs.

State's Rights. Read the 10th Amendment...the states gave very limited powers to the feds and reserved everything else to themselves/the People.

Federal Delegated-Power, and State Full-Power, Republics

7. The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual. (See Par. 3, Principle 4.)

[Mr. Glock]

Although I don’t stand against the idea, the Whiskey Rebellion put an end to that. In 1794.

[JimE]

State's Rights. Read the 10th Amendment...the states gave very limited powers to the feds and reserved everything else to themselves/the People.
)

Just a wag, but I believe the PLCAA falls under the interstate commerce clause.
Same as where the Fed's claimed authority to enact the Brady Act.