The Brewing Battle Over Firearms Manufacturers Liability
BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago
WaPo.
Gun control advocates have long sought ways to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal immunity law that shields the gun industry from liability. State lawmakers in Democratic strongholds across the country contend they have achieved that feat through the passage of “public nuisance” gun laws.
In New York, New Jersey and Delaware, gun manufacturers, sellers and distributors can now be sued for endangering the public’s health and safety — or creating a “public nuisance” — through improper marketing or sales practices.
- The new statutes mark the latest round in a long-running battle between gun control advocates and firearm manufacturers over the federal immunity law. And this time the issue could land before the Supreme Court, according to legal experts, as several Democratic-led states take a more aggressive approach to restricting firearms.
The gun manufacturing industry is fighting back hard and contends the new laws are unconstitutional and in no way in compliance with the 2005 law.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the gun industry’s trade association, is leading the challenge.
Here’s where the legal fight stands between the NSSF and the states that have enacted these “public nuisance” laws:
- New Jersey: A New Jersey federal judge sided with the NSSF last month when he blocked the state’s law from being enforced, noting that it “is in direct conflict” with federal law. New Jersey has appealed the ruling.
- New York: The NSSF has appealed the dismissal of their New York lawsuit by a district court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Delaware: A hearing for the NSSF’s district challenge in Delaware will be held Feb. 28.
- California: The group also plans to sue California later this year when its version of the law goes into effect.
Gun control advocates and legal experts who focus on the Second Amendment said the NSSF’s multistate approach bears all the hallmarks of how a special interest group can maneuver to give itself the best chance to bring a case before the Supreme Court, particularly one that may be viewed favorably by the majority.
The NSSF says its goal is simply to challenge the new laws in every jurisdiction where they are being implemented.
“There’s no grand strategy,” said NSSF senior vice president Lawrence Keane. “We are simply responding to the threat to our industry that is occasioned by these statutes being passed at the behest of these gun control groups.”
- But gun control advocates are skeptical the industry is not angling for a date with the Supreme Court.
Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said she believes the NSSF and other gun industry groups could be trying to manufacture circuit splits by filing several lawsuits across the country.
Good. I hope they’re able to “manufacture circuit splits.” I don’t care whether that’s their strategy or not – I hope it redounds that that end.
I don’t much like Larry Keane. He’s always been neck deep in NRA shenanigans. But that doesn’t matter for this purpose. The only other thing to do if the supreme court doesn’t take this up and then knock it down is for manufacturers to stop sales of all firearms to citizens in those states who enact such laws including and most especially law enforcement.
That would be financially harmful to the firearms industry, but less so than lawsuits that cause bankruptcy.
On February 22, 2023 at 2:22 pm, scott s. said:
“Public nuisance” theories have been used in a number of cases to get around restrictions on common law torts. Eventually the Supremes are going to have to come to grips with this.
On February 22, 2023 at 3:26 pm, Archer said:
Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said she believes the NSSF and other gun industry groups could be trying to manufacture circuit splits by filing several lawsuits across the country.
Alternate explanation: It’s in NSSF’s best interest — and that of their members: the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers — to challenge these laws wherever they pop up.
I mean, what message does it send if NSSF lets one slide by?
But of course the “gun control” advocacy organization’s official position is that any gun rights advocacy group or gun industry trade association appropriately representing and defending its members’ interests MUST be shady and shenanigan-ridden. Of course that’s what it must be.
On February 22, 2023 at 9:42 pm, X said:
This was the final nail in the coffin for Remington when they went bankrupt a few years ago.
Remington, of course, did plenty of stupid things on their own — producing faulty triggers for decades, low quality control, producing that hideous R51 pistol, purchasing and gutting Bushmaster, Marlin, H&R, and Para-Ord, etc. etc.
But it was only after they were sued by the Sandy Hook people for “falsely advertising” Bushmaster and the judge allowed the suit to go forward did they finally go bankrupt, causing a huge hole in the availability of ammo, lever guns, and pump-action rifles.
The Left seems to be betting a lot on this strategy, every major city in New York engaged in a coordinated series of lawsuits against major players in the gun industry for “false advertising” just a few weeks ago. The industry is not very big and margins are not high and it cannot survive without legal protection, and the Leftists know it.