The breaking SCOTUS news isn’t related to any of the cases the court is currently hearing or preparing to rule on, but one where they’re simply considering taking the case. And it’s potentially a huge one for Second Amendment supporters. The court has agreed to consider hearing the appeal in Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, which deals with the lawsuit brought against the firearms manufacturer by relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting of 2012. At issue here is the federally mandated protection of such manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits. (NY Times)
The Supreme Court will consider this week whether to hear a case seeking to pierce firearm manufacturers’ legal immunity in the aftermath of shootings.
The case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, pits relatives of those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington, the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the Dec. 14, 2012, massacre in Newtown, Conn. Twenty first graders and six educators died.
The lawsuit challenges a 2005 law protecting gun makers from legal liability when their weapons are used in crimes.
What Second Amendment opponents are hoping for here is an opportunity to essentially obliterate the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If a suit seeking to “hold gun manufacturers accountable” for the actions of criminals using their products succeeds, the law would essentially be wiped off the books.
This case never should have made it this far if we’re being honest. The Connecticut State Supreme Court already shot down the plaintiff’s argument that Remington had “negligently entrusted” a weapon of war to an untrained civilian population. But by a narrow margin, the court allowed the seemingly ridiculous notion that the company was violating state law by airing “advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.”
The idea that Remington’s advertisements were intentionally encouraging illegal actions is laughable on its face. That’s why the company needs the Supreme Court to back their objections to the last ruling and shut this maneuver down.
Wiping out the PLCAA is a major goal for opponents of the Second Amendment. Since they haven’t had much luck in eliminating the right to keep and bear arms through legislative means, this is probably their next, best hope. Having Second Amendment rights won’t mean much in the United States if every manufacturer of legal firearms is sued out of existence anytime some maniac uses one of their weapons to inflict damage. At that point, they will basically be able to say, enjoy your right to have a firearm. Now good luck finding one.