 |
| [More] |
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will not hear a closely watched case against gunmaker Remington, a move the company has warned could potentially increase the liability of firearm manufacturers to suits brought by victims of gun crimes.Why? Isn't the law clear?
All SCOTUSblog says is:
Remington Arms Co. v. Soto Petition for certiorari denied on November 12, 2019
I wonder who among the "conservative majority" f***ed us.
* And no, I'm not sure about him, but based on his record of betrayal it wouldn't surprise me.
I think the judges decided that this wasn’t a challenge to PLCAA, but an attempted end-run around PLCAA, and that there was no part of PLCAA that prevented it.
ReplyDeletePLCAA says a manufacturer or dealer can't be sued because a gun they sold legally was used in a crime. This suit contends that the manufacturer intentionally marketed the guns to people unusually prone to commit a crime.
The question here is, is this subject covered by PLCAA or not? The case will only proceed if it is not, meaning that the case cannot have any effect on PLCAA's primary provisions.
Certainly there is an argument to be made that how a gun is marketed is almost totally irrelevant, when the federal government is responsible for ensuring that anyone who buys a gun is legally eligible to buy a gun, and the government had no objection to the purchaser.