Would a SCOTUS win in any 'assault weapons' case prevent the Sandy Hook plan?

[Aim1]

The lawyers for Sandy Hook are attempting a new line of attack in an attempt to bypass the PLCAA. They are saying that AR15's should not be on the civilian market and because of that the PLCAA does not protect them.

They are obviously blaming the weapon and not the shooter. We don't see victim's of these mass murder with vehicle crimes going after the car manufacturers just like we don't see people attempting to ban bridges to prevent suicides.


Right now the legality of 'assault weapons' is in limbo with some high courts saying they can be banned and other saying that they are legal and SCOTUS as refused to grant cert on such a case.



If the SCOTUS had taken up and ruled on say Kolbe v. Maryland or Friedman v. City of Highland Park and ruled that 'assault weapons' are legal, then would the lawyers case against bypassing the PLCAA be void?



Or would they still be able to attempt to bypass the PLCAA and sue?

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . If the SCOTUS had taken up and ruled on say Kolbe v. Maryland or Friedman v. City of Highland Park and ruled that 'assault weapons' are legal, then would the lawyers case against bypassing the PLCAA be void?

Or would they still be able to attempt to bypass the PLCAA and sue?

There's no way to answer this without SCOTUS actually having taken and ruled upon such a case. In other words, the phrasing of the question is an invitation to wild speculation.

Accordingly, closed.