- Jan 5, 2008
- My forest stronghold
The Supreme Court ruled against Remington again. Does this mean the lawsuit will continue?
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the firearms industry, rejecting Remington Arms Co's bid to escape a lawsuit by families of victims aiming to hold the gun maker liable for its marketing of the assault-style rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 20...news.yahoo.com
Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?
The court did not rule on anything here, they merely decided not to take up an issue at this time. And they did so without any dissent or other comment. I don't know of many, or even any, PLCAA cases that have gotten this far. The court doesn't see it's job as righting every wrong or saving every kitten in the shelter. We may very well see more of these cases before the court feels a need sort things out. One questionable outcome is not going to make them jump into the fray.
Also, this and other PLCAA cases are not constitutional cases. There was no constitutional issue at stake. This was a case of statutory interpretation. The petition asked one question:
And offered three reasons supporting the granting of cert:The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).
- The Decision Below Exacerbates An Acknowledged Division Of Authority
- The Decision Below Is Wrong
- This Case Is An Attractive Vehicle To Resolve An Important And Recurring Issue
The full docket including petition, response, replay and amici briefs is here: Search