The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was approved on a bipartisan basis twenty years ago, was meant to block junk lawsuits that seek to hold gun makers responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. While the law has been helpful in that regard, some states have tried to sidestep the PLCAA’s protections by making it possible or easier to sue members of the firearms industry under public nuisance laws or consumer protection statutes.
Connecticut, which is already home to a host of gun control restrictions from a ban on modern sporting rifles to requiring a permit to simply possess a firearm in the home, could soon take a page from anti-gun neighbors like New York and New Jersey in making it easier to sue gun makers on specious grounds.
A law that would make it easier for the victims of gun violence to file civil lawsuits against the firearms industry was approved Monday in the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
The bill’s impetus was the years-long struggle of families of the 20 first-graders and six adults in the 2012 shootings in Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School to sue Remington, the maker of the military-style rifle that killed them. The families final won a $73 million settlement in 2022.
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the committee, said that about a half-dozen other states have similar legal paths to ease the way for families and victims to sue “irresponsible” gun makers who violate Connecticut or state laws, or are involved in marketing their weapons in ways that could residents at-risk.
“Folks may be aware that under federal law there are significant restrictions, which are placed on the ability to bring lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and gun dealers,” Stafstrom said, citing a 2005 law aimed at giving the industry immunity. The act includes exceptions to allow states to develop their own laws on civil actions. The bill next heads to the House of Representatives.
States can set up their own state statute on civil actions, but they still can’t run afoul of federal law. That’s why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently dismissed a civil case filed against Springfield Armory and a department store that lawfully sold a firearm that was later used in a negligent shooting where a 14-year-old was shot and killed by his friend.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that PLCAA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and principles of federalism, and dismissed the Gustafson’s lawsuit with prejudice. You can read the Court’s opinion here, but the big takeaway is that ever single justice agreed that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a valid statute, and one that doesn’t only apply to lawsuits brought in federal court.
It’s utterly absurd to believe that plaintiffs should be able to sue gun makers over things like ads that resemble FPS games like Call of Duty, feature American flags, talk about masculinity, or advocate for self-defense. Yet that’s exactly what’s taking place, and some judges are allowing these suits to proceed even if there’s no evidence that these ads are encouraging the misuse of a firearm, much less that the perpetrator of a particular crime was ever exposed to that advertising.
Frankly, these junk lawsuits are just as much an attack on our First Amendment rights as our Second Amendment liberties, but Connecticut Democrats don’t seem to be bothered at all about curtailing those rights… at least when it comes to gun owners and the firearms industry. The Supreme Court’s pending decision in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico will hopefully provide gun companies with the full protections of the PLCAA and make it harder for bills like this to survive judicial scrutiny, but if the Court adopts a narrow reading of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act expect other anti-gun states to follow Connecticut’s lead.
Read the full article here
