search
top

Huge Hole Blown in PLCAA

The Supreme Court has denied cert in the Remington case. At issue is whether Remington violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. From the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that was on appeal to SCOTUS:

Specifically, if the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.

The end result will likely be that states pass laws that eliminate or frustrate the firearms manufacturers ability to market. Much like happened with tobacco. Clearly now there’s significant legal hazard in marketing firearms.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy, who actually practices appellate law, has a take on this as well. He seems to suggest the plaintiffs still have quite an uphill climb. But discovery will now proceed.

16 Responses to “Huge Hole Blown in PLCAA”

  1. emdfl says:

    law-making/rule by black-robed oligarchs. Judge Dredd is alive and well in D.C.

  2. Joe says:

    This goes beyond Firearms Manufacturers. This affects retailers that sell them and content all throughout various channels of media.

    Cabelas and other retailers can now be sued for selling and inventorying these Firearms under the same guise. Social Media firms like Facebook and Instagram, Video Channels like Youtube, Daily Motion and others can now be held liable for streaming and possessing Firearms related content under the guise that they are advertising in this manner………perfect cover for them to now delete and censor gun-channels en masse now.

    A big sarcastic thanks and honest F*** YOU!! to Good ‘ole John Roberts. I should’ve expected this after he twice rewrote and saved MaobamaCare on behalf of Lepper-Messiah 44.

    I suspect that Brett Kavanaugh is also going full Bush-Squish as well. The Democrat Party threats of Court Packing are paying off big, but of course, whenever they next cease power, they’ll do it anyway.

  3. Mike W. says:

    So, under this “logic” if some idiot buys a Hellcat, does donuts, drifts and burnouts on public streets with it, slides up onto a sidewalk hitting and killing a mom and her kids, Dodge can and should be sued due to how they marketed the car?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pi4RrMtumI

  4. Brad says:

    When the laws in certain States become too extreme, the natural reaction of many gun companies will be to stop selling many of their products in that State, even if technically still able to do so under the law.

    This is already the case for many models of handguns in Commiefornia.

  5. David Hardy makes it seem considerably less apocalyptic … https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2019/11/supreme_court_d_2.php I hope he’s right.

  6. Brad says:

    The legal theory of the plaintiffs, that Remington was advertising illegal uses of the Bushmaster rifle, is baldly insane. And even if that theory were true, that advertising had no connection whatsoever to the actions and motives of the mass murderer.

    That the lawsuit has managed to advance so far based on such nonsense is deeply troubling. Our nations flight from reason and charge towards savage tribalism will end in blood.

  7. Andy B. says:

    Is there something I don’t get here? What happened to all those conservative Justices we were supposed to go to the mat for, to make sure they were confirmed?

    One could be led to believe that some people don’t really believe in the RKBA, after all.

  8. David Lawson says:

    Doesn’t PLCAA already have a huge hole based upon its own text. I believe it has an exception for violations of state law.

  9. Divemedic says:

    SCOTUS didn’t hand anyone a win. By refusing CERT, all they are saying is that it is POSSIBLE that a gun manufacturer can be liable for harm caused by a weapon IF they advertise it in a way that encourages people to buy that weapon in order to carry out a crime. Nothing says that Remington did that. The trial hasn’t even happened yet, so no one knows one way or the other.

  10. Scott says:

    Interesting post this morning on one of the legal blogs I read:

    https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/11/13/the-bullets-of-attrition/

  11. Richard says:

    IANAL and Hardy is but what he is missing is that the point was never to win. It is to bankrupt the manufacturers with legal expenses. That was the strategy back before PLCAA was passed and it still is.

    We have got to stop playing defense and strike back against the enemies of the Constitution. Specifically we need criminal and civil charges against those who deny civil rights under color of law. The DoJ is playing for the other team but what about state AGs who theoretically support the RKBA.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Supreme Court denies cert in PLCAA case - […] Sebastian is worried, but Dave Hardy seems calmer, mostly because the litigation is at an early stage. My take…

Leave a Reply

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

top