This case presents two topics I definitely believe in squarely against one another.

https://reason.com/2022/08/19/a-case-tha...ederalism/

Relevant background: 2005 Shrub "signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a statute designed to protect gun makers, dealers, distributors, and importers from being sued "for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.""

Pennsylvania state case, where a kid accidentally killed his friend, thinking the semi-auto was unloaded because the magazine had been removed. There was 'one in the chamber'.

Dead child's family sues, and the Penn appellate court had to face the PLCAA, and found it unconstitutional -- citing that tort law is the province of the states themselves.

Edited to add: sues the gun manufacturer. Thanks Native.

This still has to go to the Penn Supreme Court, and almost certainly land in Federal court. The wild thing is how this will shift positions of 'political' views.

Anti-gun activists will now be clamoring for stronger 10th Amendment considerations more typically voiced by conservatives and libertarians. All the while gun rights supporters will be supporting less 10th Amendment interaction more typically voiced by progressives.

Quote:Pennsylvania state case, where a kid accidentally killed his friend, thinking the semi-auto was unloaded because the magazine had been removed. There was 'one in the chamber'.

Dead child's family sues…

Who is the defendant?

So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

(08-19-2022 02:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:Pennsylvania state case, where a kid accidentally killed his friend, thinking the semi-auto was unloaded because the magazine had been removed. There was 'one in the chamber'.

Dead child's family sues…

Who is the defendant?

Sorry -- tort case against gun manufacturer.

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

If the Pennsylvania ruling stands, that would be a result.

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

I'd imagine that this may jeopardize much of the federal environmental legislation and regulations also.

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

The federal government runs the insurance for vaccine makers... so any liability they'd be hit with would be paid for by the taxpayers.

(08-19-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

If the Pennsylvania ruling stands, that would be a result.

(08-19-2022 02:41 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

I'd imagine that this may jeopardize much of the federal environmental legislation and regulations also.

oh man, tort lawyers are probably drooling right now.

(08-19-2022 02:41 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

I'd imagine that this may jeopardize much of the federal environmental legislation and regulations also.

There arent that many federal environmental legislation and regulations that bar torts.

There is a much better case to be made that the Federal government can utilize other aspects of its allowed powers to allow certain torts.

But the Pennsylvania case could do as you say.

Also remember that at least three 3 SCOTUS justices are gaining a reputation as big proponents of limited powers, stronger 10th amendment stances. Two nominated by Trump. And Thomas is squarely in that camp.

And, as this case demonstrates, there are two sharp edges to a strong 10th Amendment stance. One that fits a conservative viewpoint and one that cuts against it (as in this case particularly).

(08-19-2022 03:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 02:41 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 02:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, people are going to be able to sue the fake covid vax makers, because tort law falls to the states? Be careful what one wishes for.

I'd imagine that this may jeopardize much of the federal environmental legislation and regulations also.

There arent that many federal environmental legislation and regulations that bar torts.

There is a much better case to be made that the Federal government can utilize other aspects of its allowed powers to allow certain torts.

But the Pennsylvania case could do as you say.

Also remember that at least three 3 SCOTUS justices are gaining a reputation as big proponents of limited powers, stronger 10th amendment stances. Two nominated by Trump. And Thomas is squarely in that camp.

And, as this case demonstrates, there are two sharp edges to a strong 10th Amendment stance. One that fits a conservative viewpoint and one that cuts against it (as in this case particularly).

Showing my ignorance yet again, isn't every federal clean-up undertaking the displacement of tort litigation? The residents of Love Canal were compensated through the "superfund", but lost their separate right to sue. No?

Disclaimer: my knowledge of environmental suits pretty much is limited to having read and enjoyed "A Civil Action".