Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

[BET7]

Well, it looks like my State is following Connecticut's lead in allowing lawsuits of Gun Manufactures in shootings (accidental or otherwise). In this case, it's an accidental shooting involving Springfield Armory and the department store that sold the firearm involved in the shooting. This court's make-up, leans towards the gun control side of things. It will probably be appealed to the PA State Supreme Court in the near future. In these type cases, it seems that the political make-up of the court usually determines the outcomes, but not always.

Note: The article author incorrectly mentions "clip" instead of "magazine", and Springfield "Arms" instead of "Armory".

Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

A state appeals court in Pennsylvania declared the federal law that protects gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits unconstitutional on Monday in a victory for gun-control proponents that would allow the family of a 13-year-old boy who died in a 2016 shooting accident to move forward with a...

www.foxnews.com

 

[BangBang]

Note: The article author incorrectly mentions "clip" instead of "magazine", and Springfield "Arms" instead of "Armory".

Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

A state appeals court in Pennsylvania declared the federal law that protects gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits unconstitutional on Monday in a victory for gun-control proponents that would allow the family of a 13-year-old boy who died in a 2016 shooting accident to move forward with a...

www.foxnews.com

[/QUOTE]

That’s because they are ignorant. They have no idea what they are talking about so long as their bodyguards are armed with clips in their Springfield Arms firearms. Again, if I get into a wreck involving a drunk driver I should be able to sue said car company....it is their fault after all...

 

[BET7]

Note: The article author incorrectly mentions "clip" instead of "magazine", and Springfield "Arms" instead of "Armory".

Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

A state appeals court in Pennsylvania declared the federal law that protects gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits unconstitutional on Monday in a victory for gun-control proponents that would allow the family of a 13-year-old boy who died in a 2016 shooting accident to move forward with a...

www.foxnews.com

That’s because they are ignorant. They have no idea what they are talking about so long as their bodyguards are armed with clips in their Springfield Arms firearms. Again, if I get into a wreck involving a drunk driver I should be able to sue said car company....it is their fault after all...
[/QUOTE]
That's where this will lead BangBang, if not overturned by a higher court.

 

[Annihilator]

So, what is the sense of having laws on the books if a judge can decide to basically ignore it and rule to his preference. Going to say this, probably shouldn’t, I don’t believe in the judicial system in this country anymore, never have and never will, sorry if this offends anybody, this is my personal opinion.

 

[benstt]

So, what is the sense of having laws on the books if a judge can decide to basically ignore it and rule to his preference. Going to say this, probably shouldn’t, I don’t believe in the judicial system in this country anymore, never have and never will, sorry if this offends anybody, this is my personal opinion.

A judge can't ignore the law but can say the law is invalid if they have a valid reason, such as finding the law unconstitutional. From my brief read of the court's decision, they are saying the law infringes on the 10th Amendment, which is the Amendment that gives the states the power to regulate anything not explicitly reserved for the federal government. It's the state's rights amendment. You are entitled to your opinion and don't let anyone give you flak for having one. My only admonishment is to encourage you to be open to changing your opinion based on new or new to you evidence.

 

[Keystone19250]

Most likely since this firearm was in a private home because it had been transferred to a private citizen Springfield Armory can not be held responsible for how it was stored or used or used by whom. In reality this will be argued that adults in the home should be held responsible for failing to properly store said firearm. All firearm companies have attorneys on retainer for just this type of frivolous lawsuit. Yes the resulting argument in the courts about allowing manufacturers to be sued is outrageous but it is the sign of the times.

I can’t help but wonder if this was a (new) gun owner that was still learning on the “safe” way to store a firearm when children are in the home.
Totally tragic.

 

[Peglegjoe]

And that is the goal. Keep the manufacturers tied up in court, keep their MONEY tied up in court, and eventually they'll go out of business.

Can't legislate them out of existence? Litigate them into the poorhouse, until they go bankrupt.

What a crock of

 

[benstt]

Most likely since this firearm was in a private home because it had been transferred to a private citizen Springfield Armory can not be held responsible for how it was stored or used or used by whom. In reality this will be argued that adults in the home should be held responsible for failing to properly store said firearm. All firearm companies have attorneys on retainer for just this type of frivolous lawsuit. Yes the resulting argument in the courts about allowing manufacturers to be sued is outrageous but it is the sign of the times.

I can’t help but wonder if this was a (new) gun owner that was still learning on the “safe” way to store a firearm when children are in the home.
Totally tragic.

I think you're right. Bring able to file a lawsuit doesn't mean it survives a 12(b)(6) or a summary judgement motion. Definitely not a jury verdict. I'm not very up on the facts of this case but it sounds to me like the plaintiffs will have a tough time proving Springfield is liable. I suppose they'll try some "foreseeable misuse" argument or something ut I see that as a tough hill to climb.

 

[StillLearning]

Pretty sure Pennsylvania has a law requiring new gun purchases to come with a lock. Where is the owners liability for not securing with said lock (that they most likely signed a piece of paper saying they received)?

 

[benstt]

And that is the goal. Keep the manufacturers tied up in court, keep their MONEY tied up in court, and eventually they'll go out of business.

Can't legislate them out of existence? Litigate them into the poorhouse, until they go bankrupt.

What a crock of

There'll be some precedent set in the next few years that will make lawsuits much harder. There'll probably be a feeding frenzy of bottom-feeding lawyers sending out mailers to "victims" for the next few years until enough cases get tossed out that it isn't worth the money to try. I see this being much more similar to the black mold cases, which have dried up, than the asbestos cases.

 

[jumpinjoe]

So, what is the sense of having laws on the books if a judge can decide to basically ignore it and rule to his preference. Going to say this, probably shouldn’t, I don’t believe in the judicial system in this country anymore, never have and never will, sorry if this offends anybody, this is my personal opinion.

Unfortunately this judge chose to find a very thin technicality, which by any sense of logic would not apply, to base this ruling. It takes a twisted and/or selfish mentality to find in this fashion. As times goes on it becomes more and more evident there are some in this country who have a genuine yearning to destroy the very country that has provided so favorably for them.

And as an aside, we don't often see any real 'justice' anymore, we see 'legal technicalities'. Evidence the rioting, arson, vandalism, looting, etc in so many cities around the country ..... and the city leaders who do absolutely nothing to punish or end it. It seems we truly are seeing more a 'legal' system than a 'justice' system. Hopefully one day we will see a SCOTUS that will interpret the constitution as it was written and was intended, rather than as some would prefer it had been written.

 

[benstt]

Pretty sure Pennsylvania has a law requiring new gun purchases to come with a lock. Where is the owners liability for not securing with said lock (that they most likely signed a piece of paper saying they received)?

That'll be a defense, no doubt about it. I don't know what Pennsylvania uses for contributory negligence, comparative fault, intervening and superseding cause, etc but I'm sure Springfield's lawyers have that locked down.

 

[benstt]

Unfortunately this judge chose to find a very thin technicality, which by any sense of logic would not apply, to base this ruling. It takes a twisted and/or selfish mentality to find in this fashion. As times goes on it becomes more and more evident there are some in this country who have a genuine yearning to destroy the very country that has provided so favorably for them.

And as an aside, we don't often see any real 'justice' anymore, we see 'legal technicalities'. Evidence the rioting, arson, vandalism, looting, etc in so many cities around the country ..... and the city leaders who do absolutely nothing to punish or end it. It seems we truly are seeing more a 'legal' system than a 'justice' system. Hopefully one day we will see a SCOTUS that will interpret the constitution as it was written and was intended, rather than as some would prefer it had been written.

What technicality do you see, and what is thin about it? You might very well have spent more time reading the opinion than me, but finding a law violates the Constitution is not a mere technicality.

What you say about justice it true; we have a legal system, not a justice system. The law dictates outcomes not a sense of justice. There is a lot of good in that, as it is more predictable and able to be codified. Justice is too subjective to be a basis for law. My opinion. What is your basis for saying our current legal system is contrary to the Constitution as written? This is not a gotcha question, but one born of curiosity.

 

[jumpinjoe]

I think you're right. Bring able to file a lawsuit doesn't mean it survives a 12(b)(6) or a summary judgement motion. Definitely not a jury verdict. I'm not very up on the facts of this case but it sounds to me like the plaintiffs will have a tough time proving Springfield is liable. I suppose they'll try some "foreseeable misuse" argument or something ut I see that as a tough hill to climb.

Doesn't really matter whether these frivolous lawsuits will prevail or survive. That's not even a serious concern to the anti-gun folks. It still ties up literally millions of a company's dollars, time, and other resources just to defend them. The anti's know that and have learned to lean on these asinine rulings from left leaning judges to continue to allow them...... frivolous or not!

 

[Keystone19250]

That'll be a defense, no doubt about it. I don't know what Pennsylvania uses for contributory negligence, comparative fault, intervening and superseding cause, etc but I'm sure Springfield's lawyers have that locked down.

Exactly, we all know every S.A. Firearm comes with a gun lock, in fact every firearm sold in this country has one, also how many of us read S.A. Manuals? And how many times do they reference safety?? I’d be more surprised to find out Pennsylvania does not have a law on the books requiring the home owner to ensure all guns stored in the home are locked up. Most states do.

 

[benstt]

Doesn't really matter whether these frivolous lawsuits will prevail or survive. That's not even a serious concern to the anti-gun folks. It still ties up literally millions of a company's dollars, time, and other resources just to defend them. The anti's know that and have learned to lean on these asinine rulings from left leaning judges to continue to allow them...... frivolous or not!

The only thing I can say in response to that is a quick 12(b)(6), or the state equivalent, can end a frivolous lawsuit really fast if there is no valid claim, and a party that continues to bring a case after the safe harbor period can be sanctioned.

 

[benstt]

Exactly, we all know every S.A. Firearm comes with a gun lock, in fact every firearm sold in this country has one, also how many of us read S.A. Manuals? And how many times do they reference safety?? I’d be more surprised to find out Pennsylvania does not have a law on the books requiring the home owner to ensure all guns stored in the home are locked up. Most states do.

Every one I've bought in the last few years comes with a handy warning from the ATF that I might be responsible if a minor improperly uses a weapon I haven't stored properly. It'd be crazy to say the owners were not warned about consequences when they bought the firearm, or that a reasonable person wouldn't know to keep a loaded firearm secured away from kids.

 

[jumpinjoe]

What technicality do you see, and what is thin about it? You might very well have spent more time reading the opinion than me, but finding a law violates the Constitution is not a mere technicality.

What you say about justice it true; we have a legal system, not a justice system. The law dictates outcomes not a sense of justice. There is a lot of good in that, as it is more predictable and able to be codified. Justice is too subjective to be a basis for law. My opinion. What is your basis for saying our current legal system is contrary to the Constitution as written? This is not a gotcha question, but one born of curiosity.

The technicality is that the only connection to 10th amendment wherein the state's rights is reserved. The fact is the manufacturer resides in the state, but other than real estate, has no real effect nor impact on the state's rights. That ruling is a '''''''stretch'''''''' in anybody's real/fair/just world.

And as for a legal system rather than a justice system, you and I have discussed this before. And while it is true and I agree with you that a solely justice system (eye for an eye) is not a good thing, a solely legal system is as bad or in many cases far worse. A justice system that relies on truth, real truth and not technicalities is what I refer to as a 'justice' system.

 

[jumpinjoe]

"..................................
What you say about justice it true; we have a legal system, not a justice system. The law dictates outcomes not a sense of justice. There is a lot of good in that, as it is more predictable and able to be codified. Justice is too subjective to be a basis for law. My opinion. What is your basis for saying our current legal system is contrary to the Constitution as written? This is not a gotcha question, but one born of curiosity.

I didn't say "our current legal system is contrary to the Constitution". What I said/implied is that far too many liberal rulings are based on technicalities rather than truth. I agree that "justice is too subjective" in and of itself. That's why we require evidence and juries of our peers. We enjoy (in most cases) the presumption of innocence. But far, far too often we see rulings based on legalities and/or technicalities (some as thin as the one we're discussing) to rule the day. It has very little to do with our constitution, it has to do with left leaning judges legislating from the bench.

Now for my curiosity ..... do you think all this rioting, burning, looting, etc, etc that's gone on for months with little or no consequence is justified, or has it simply been legalized?

 

[BET7]

Exactly, we all know every S.A. Firearm comes with a gun lock, in fact every firearm sold in this country has one, also how many of us read S.A. Manuals? And how many times do they reference safety?? I’d be more surprised to find out Pennsylvania does not have a law on the books requiring the home owner to ensure all guns stored in the home are locked up. Most states do.

To the best of my knowledge, PA., does not have a law requiring firearms to be locked up in the home (at least no where that I could find). Obviously, it's a good idea if there are others (especially children), in the house. I live alone and do not lock up "some" of my firearms. If leaving the house for an extended period of time, I will lock those up as well.