PA court declares gun owner protection law unconstitutional

a PA appeals coury has declared the federal gun owners protection law which protects gun makers from lawsuits when their weapons are used violates the 10th amendment.

in his words
A gun being sold across state lines at some point “does not give Congress perpetual authority to regulate any harm it may cause,"

IF (and its a big if) this stands it could reqlly put a hurt on gun makers

I don’t think this will stand. Selling your product across state lines is the definition of interstate commerce, but who knows.

Interesting reminder that State Courts exercise full federal question jurisdiction.

I also believe that with Barrett on board and Robert’s Second Amendment reticence no longer relevant, the Supreme Court will quickly reverse this.

This will have to go to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first, then on to the United States Supreme Court.

The problem is not the interstate commerce clause.

The problem is the concept itself. Guns do not “cause harm” unless they malfunction.

Gun manufacturers are not immune from manufacturing defects.


Court decision is unConstitutional.


The ruling should be overturned and the judges censured.


Judicial gun grabbing.

It took 15 years for PA to bring this case?

1 Like

Pennsylvania didn’t “bring” the case at all. The family of a man accidentally killed in 2016 brought the case.

Yes to the first clause and no to the second clause.

1 Like

It’s the 2nd A. The left hates it. Shall not be infringed.

Perhaps this is why the police unions in PA are endorsing Trump.

With the antifa riots we all clearly see there are elected dems who only want criminals to be armed…

See both sides agree. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have gun’s…

IF you WANT TONS OF LAWS, and WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE…you may be a democrat…


Of course he should be censured. He is not acting in good faith in accordance with his oath.

A gun being sold across state lines at some point “does not give Congress perpetual authority to regulate any harm it may cause," he wrote.

This is an interesting statement. Montana rifles.

In his emotional zeal, he failed to consider the implications of his ruling.

He is incompetent.

1 Like

This is not a 2nd Amendment case.

Disagree. He knew exactly what the implications were.

It’s a commerce clause case.

It is to me…

By your definition, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts (and most others) would be incompetent. All either had rulings of theirs reversed when they were on lower courts or were on the losing side at the Supreme Court.

Zoom out, the commerce clause, probably the most abused in history, covers much more than guns.

1 Like

Yes, and what else? A couple of other things.