Thought there was a law that specifically prohibited this type product liability lawsuit. Is SCOTUS saying they find that law unconstitutional? (Not sure how you could read anything but that, from their decision). Interesting....
I think they are allowing the case to continue in Connecticut and have effect only in Connecticut.
A CT state court case will only set precedent in CT.Huh? There is no way for it to only have an effect in CT.
A CT state court case will only set precedent in CT.
SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal at this time. Read the article. No precedent is set.PLCAA is a Federal Law. IF SCOTUS decides to not enforce it, that sets precedent in every state and possession in USA.
SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal at this time. Read the article. No precedent is set.
Huh? Colt and Ruger I believe is out of Connecticut, but S&W started in Norwich, Conn. but then moved to Springfield, Massachusetts, but I could be wrong.I think they are allowing the case to continue in Connecticut and have effect only in Connecticut.
I know I (an avowed S&W fanboy) won't buy another S&W product as long as they stay in Connecticut. Connecticut does not deserve any support. If they had a damn bit of sense they would set up shop in Texas.
Sigh...I did read it, along with many others. You need to comprehend what it means.
They declined the appeal to grant certiorari on the application of the PLCAA.
Thus the case will go forward. When the case is over, the defendant can then appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS declining the appeal to grant certiorari, is a 50 state precedent. When the trial is over, that will also be a 50 state precedent. There is no possibly way to contain the case to CT.