SCOTUS, Anti-Gun Lawfare, and the Importance of PLCAA

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is an important bit of legislation that makes it a lot harder for people to sue gun companies because of what third parties do with the products they make and/or sell. It’s ridiculous we need such a law because only the mentally disabled would blame a company for making a product, selling it lawfully, only for some completely different party to do something.

I often liken it to suing Toyota over drunk drivers, and that’s for good reason.

As things are now, though, that protection is starting to crumble a bit. It’s being challenged left and right, with such a challenge currently before the Supreme Court, even as some states try to create workarounds that will let the lawfare against the firearm industry resume.

John Commerford at the NRA-ILA has some thoughts on the subject.

As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s (PLCAA) passage coming up on Oct. 26, the law is imperiled by a new generation of anti-gun litigants seeking to exploit loopholes. In March, however, one such case—Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicano—landed before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it received a chilly reception from skeptical justices across the ideological spectrum.

Most observers believe the plaintiffs overplayed their hand, although the reasoning the justices use to resolve the case will determine whether the PLCAA continues to protect the law-abiding gun industry as intended.

The PLCAA is ultimately about how the industry that enables Americans’ Second Amendment rights is regulated. Is it by relatively fixed and ascertainable statutes enacted by democratically elected legislators? Or is it by unpredictable, shifting and innumerable standards of “reasonableness” imposed after the fact by unelected judges at the behest of firearm prohibitionists?

That latter option promotes lawfare, which has been characterized as death by a thousand cuts. Lawfare practitioners may not care if they win their cases, because even one who is innocent before the law can succumb to the legal process itself.

The biggest cut is the expense of litigation. The lengthier and more complex the proceedings, the more likely the defendant will be unable to sustain a defense.

Another is reputational harm from accusations of wrongdoing, no matter how baseless, particularly if the media and public officials amplify the plaintiff’s case.

Commerford goes on to detail how the lawfare activists are using justifiable exceptions within the PLCAA and exploiting them to try and bring back their zealous attack on the one industry most vital to the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun companies can and should be able to be sued for misconduct. If they make a faulty barrel and it explodes, for example, they should be held accountable. Or, if their gun discharges in your holster, you might want to talk to a lawyer, and you should have that avenue available.

But the gun grabbers are trying to use this by claiming the companies’ marketing is misconduct, that by appealing to their customer base, they’re somehow responsible for what other people do.

The kicker is that many of these efforts don’t even try to present evidence that the criminal party even saw the marketing. That doesn’t matter to these folks, and that’s downright disgusting to me.

All Eyes on SCOTUS: Will the Court Finally Defend the AR15 & the 2nd Amendment?

Opinion: Companion article inspired by Mark Smith’s Four Boxes Diner commentary and Roger Katz’s analysis in AmmoLand News

The Supreme Court has now relisted Snope v. Brown—the Maryland “assault weapons” ban challenge—13 times. That’s not just some bureaucratic delay. It’s a signal. It means the nine justices are circling this case, taking it seriously, and possibly gearing up to act.

In fact, as Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner points out, the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade was relisted 12 times before the Court granted review. Snope just passed that.

For pro-gun Americans who’ve had enough of being treated like second-class citizens when it comes to constitutional rights, this might be the moment we’ve been waiting for.

“This is not a trivial matter. It strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment’s protections.” — Roger Katz, AmmoLand News.

Katz is right. The question before the Court is simple but profound:

Can a state ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes—like the AR-15, America’s most popular rifle?

Under Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the answer should be no. But gun control states like Maryland [NJ, NY, CT, IL, et al] think they’ve found a loophole, labeling AR-15s “assault weapons” and pretending that changes the Constitution.

Let’s be clear:

  • Americans commonly own AR-15s in the multiple millions.
  • They’re used for self-defense, sport shooting, and home protection.
  • They are not unusual, high-powered, or reserved for war—they’re the modern-day musket.

The Snope case is a perfect test. It’s clean, it’s direct, and it gives the Court the chance to finally say: The Second Amendment applies to rifles like the AR-15. Period.

Mark Smith explains that strategic justices sometimes wait to grant review until they’re confident they have five solid votes—not just four—to win the case outright. That might be what’s happening now. Thirteen relists mean they’re either preparing to drop a bombshell decision or writing a dissent if the case gets wrongly denied.

And as Roger Katz warns in his AmmoLand News piece, if SCOTUS refuses to take Snope, or worse, lets the ban stand, it would “damage Second Amendment jurisprudence…profound and lasting.”

The math doesn’t lie. According to SCOTUSblog, cases relisted 5+ times have nearly a 40% chance of being granted, especially if the Court plans a summary reversal—a quick smackdown without oral argument, like in Caetano.

So what should we be watching for?

  • Grant of cert: The best-case scenario. Oral arguments and a full ruling.
  • Summary reversal: Also good. A fast correction directing lower courts to follow Heller and Bruen.
  • Denial: A disaster for gun rights, letting anti-gun states keep rewriting the Second Amendment.

But as Mark Smith says:

“Every day the Snope case is still alive at SCOTUS is a good day.”

Let’s hope the Court finally backs the Constitution with action—not just words. And if they do, Snope could be the next Heller. It’s time.

Something for them to think about as they ‘weigh’: ACTA NON VERBA

Trump’s DOJ Weighs Gun Rights as a Focus for Civil Rights Division

The US Justice Department’s top civil rights official said the division is considering making gun rights a formal priority, in a significant shift from its traditional focus.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview with Bloomberg that the department is reviewing whether certain state and local gun control measures infringe on citizens’ rights.
“The Second Amendment is one of the constitutional rights we are committed to defending,” Dhillon said. “We’re adding that to our analysis where states are violating constitutional rights.”
She declined to name specific jurisdictions under review but added, “I think it’s all pretty obvious where people’s rights are being violated.”
Cities including New York have maintained some of the nation’s strictest gun-permitting laws, despite a Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s “proper cause” requirement in 2022. That rule required gun permit applicants to show special justification for self-protection, which the court ruled unconstitutional.
The consideration of gun rights as a new priority for the Civil Rights Division is already reflected in an investigation launched in March. The government is looking into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed-carry permits. The US says the inquiry will examine whether the delays constitute a pattern of Second Amendment violations.
The Sheriff’s Department said in a statement in March that it is “committed” to processing the applications “in compliance with state and local laws to promote responsible gun ownership.”
Historically, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has prioritized voting rights enforcement, housing and employment discrimination cases and police oversight. Notable actions include consent decrees targeting major city police departments and enforcement of federal voting protections. Expanding the division’s mandate to cover gun rights would be a major change.
Since Dhillon took office this year, the Justice Department has made campus antisemitism, religious expression and banning transgender women in women’s sports central priorities, reflecting goals of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Police Raid Shatters British Gun Control Myth. Again

“We need sensible gun control laws like the UK has.”

How many times have you heard something like this? Often, the country is different, but a lot of times it’s not. Far too many Americans forget we fought an entire war because of British attempts at gun control and think we should import it here.

In fairness to them–well, sort of–they actually think it would work.

The problem is, it doesn’t. Like, at all.

Police have arrested seven people after uncovering a stash of guns, knives and machetes during a raid at a petrol station.

Armed officers swooped on a row of businesses around the Gulf Petrol Station in Birmingham today amid a major operation.

Firearms officers, drones officers, dog handlers, and officers from the Organised Crime and Gangs team descended on the complex at around 2.30am, where they seized several dangerous weapons.

Two stun guns, shotgun cartridges and a large number of knives and machetes were all recovered and are now being examined by officers….

Photos taken from the scene show forensics officers handling a number of guns including what appears to be a shotgun and a revolver.

A black Vauxhall was also pictured at the site of the raid, with a large dent and several scratches along the front passenger door.

Yeah, not a lot of guns, but let’s also remember that they regulate stun guns and bladed weapons, which also don’t seem to be much of a problem for some people to get.

I don’t know the specifics of this raid, nor do I care.

For me, this is just another example of how criminals will get guns, even on an island with only one roadway leading into the country. If the UK can’t keep guns out of the country, how would we?

We have a porous southern border, which isn’t as porous as it was, but is still bad enough. Once it becomes profitable enough, some criminal enterprise would start importing guns into the United States, rather than out of here.

There’s very little in the way of legal gun sales in the UK, which clearly doesn’t stop bad people from getting guns, and people want this here? They claim, “I support the Second Amendment, but…” and then want to completely gut it by doing exactly what the British were trying to do at Lexington and Concord, all without a hint of irony at the fact that it doesn’t work in the UK.

It’s absolutely bonkers, and yet, here we are.

No, the UK’s gun control doesn’t work. It never worked. As I’ve noted before, our non-gun homicide rate is higher than their total homicide rate, which means looking at them as a guide on guns makes absolutely no sense due to significant differences in our culture.

So excuse me if I don’t bend over and accept that the empire we kicked out of our borders in the 18th century and that has since shrunk to a minuscule portion of where it was, a nation that now arrests people for mean words on the internet, is a country we can learn anything from other than how not to become a totalitarian hellhole in the making.

Part of that is not giving up our guns, because I promise you, if Europeans as a whole were armed like Americans, memes wouldn’t be the thing the powers that be over there fear.

Well, this is ‘final’ so I think it can be appealed directly to SCOTUS.

Washington Supreme Court upholds ban on large ammo magazines

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state’s ban on high-capacity magazines, the latest in a two-year-long saga that has largely played out in Southwest Washington.

Lawmakers in 2022 banned the sale of ammo magazines holding more than 10 bullets in an effort to thwart deadly mass shootings. However, a gun store in Kelso allegedly continued to sell the magazines and picked up a civil lawsuit from the Washington State Attorney General in July 2023. The store owner — with help from the Pasco-based advocacy group The Silent Majority — sued, saying the law violated the U.S. Constitution.

A Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge later sided with the gun store and deemed the new law violated the Second Amendment.

Washington Supreme Court justices ruled 7-2 on Thursday that the new state law doesn’t violate Americans’ right to bear arms because “large capacity magazines are not ‘arms.’”

“The ability to purchase [large capacity magazines] is not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense,” Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision also found that the legislation does not violate the state’s constitution.

Wally Wentz, the owner of Gator’s Custom Guns in Kelso, declined to comment Thursday.

Wentz’s attorneys at the Silent Majority Foundation said they plan to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Attorney Pete Serrano said they will pore over the justices’ legal analysis first.

Continue reading “”

The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it.
– Mark Levin

Comment O’ The Day
A multi millionaire who’s too good to wait in line at the airport like the rest of us peasants and is instead flying around on private jets is “fighting oligarchy” and climate change?

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar

2A “SENSITIVE PLACES” EXPLANATION. I wrote this to a Four Boxes Diner fan so I thought I would post it here too! This explains when government can ban guns in a specific location consistent with 2A based on US’s historical tradition of gun regulations. Let me know if this makes sense. The below is superior to the other theories folks have advanced elsewhere!

Mark’s Explanation:
In short, if a government does not provide comprehensive security with limited points of entry, metal detectors and armed guards, then it cannot be a constitutionally-acceptable government-mandated gun free zone. The only time the government can take away your fundamental 2A right to keep and bear arms in a specific location is when the government itself assumes the full responsibility for protecting you with armed defense; short of this, you have a right to protect yourself.

If you look at our Founding history, the three “sensitive places” mentioned in Bruen (polling places, legislative chambers and courthouses) all had armed guards. Sheriffs, sergeant at arms, and bailiffs.

Today, with the rise of small, concealable handguns (less of a problem at the founding where everyone carried unconcealable rifles/shotguns/long guns), to have comprehensive security, the gov’t must provide metal detectors and limited entry points in addition to armed guards. At the founding, you did not need metal detectors b/c the main weapons were big and not concealable. Today, with handguns being ubiquitous, you need the metal detectors for comprehensive security, which is what we see at airports, courthouses and Congress.

Note, the government does NOT have to provide comprehensive security at a location. However, if they want to ban guns in a location, then they MUST provide comprehensive security. No government-provided armed security means the government cannot deprive you of your 2A rights.

Finally, the practical benefit to the comprehensive security approach to the “sensitive places” question is it is an objective test: has the government ACTED to make a place “sensitive” or have they just paid lip service to the question by labeling a place as “sensitive” without treating it as such.

If the government has not provided the same level of security as is provided by the government to protect the judges in a courthouse, then it is not comprehensive security and, by extension, a gun ban would not be constitutional in that specific location.

Summerville home invasion leaves suspected intruder dead

SUMMERVILLE, S.C. (WCSC) – Dorchester County deputies are investigating an apparent home invasion that ended with the suspect’s death.

The Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office responded early Wednesday, just after 1 a.m., to a call for an active home invasion in which one person was reported shot.

Upon their arrival to the 100 block of Hope Drive in Summerville, deputies found that the alleged intruder died at the scene.

It remains unclear who the shooter was or if they will face any charges, something that will be determined as the investigation continues.

The Dorchester County Coroner’s Office has not released the identity of the person who died.