HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Two decades after the Republican-controlled Congress gave gun manufacturers immunity from prosecution for crimes involving firearms, blue-state Democrats upset by gun violence believe they’ve found a way around the legal shield.
From 2021 10 states have passed laws to make it easier to sue gun manufacturers and sellers.
The latest such law in Connecticut took effect this month. It opens up firearms manufacturers and retailers to lawsuits if they don’t take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who are prohibited from possessing them or who should be suspected of intending to use them to harm themselves or others. Other states have allowed lawsuits against companies deemed to have caused a “public nuisance” by selling or marketing firearms.
The legislation — and subsequent lawsuits against gun companies — drew outrage from gun rights advocates, who accuse states of trying to circumvent the 2005 Law on the Protection of Legal Trade in Arms.
The law, which blocked a wave of similar lawsuits two decades ago, says that legally operating gun companies cannot be held responsible for violent acts committed by people who misuse guns.
“They know these laws are unconstitutional. They know these laws violate the PLCAA,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “They don’t care,” he said, adding that the real purpose of the lawsuits was to go after the industry and drain it financially.
Gun control groups say states have simply imposed clearer requirements on gun companies to ensure their products are not sold or used illegally.
“These laws not only open courtroom doors to survivors. They also force the gun industry to act more responsibly and, most importantly, can help prevent future tragedies,” said Po Murray, director of the Newtown Action Alliance, a gun violence prevention group founded after the 2012 gun violence. chairman of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Two decades of federal immunity
Congress approved protections for the gun industry after lawsuits in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere tried to hold the firearms industry responsible for violent crimes.
Many of those lawsuits alleged that gun companies knowingly supplied too many cheap guns to certain markets and ignored signs that those guns were being shipped to places with strict gun controls.
The firearms industry and the National Rifle Association called the lawsuits unfair. As long as gun companies don’t break sales rules, they shouldn’t be held responsible for the violence, they said.
President George W. Bush, a Republican, agreed in 2005. signed the shield into law, saying it helped stop “frivolous lawsuits.”
“Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding producers of legal products,” Bush said at the time.
A new approach
The legal protections Congress has given the gun industry are not absolute.
For example, a gun manufacturer that sells a defective firearm can still be sued for dangerous defects. Another exception allows lawsuits against companies that knowingly violate laws governing the sale and trade of firearms.
When Congress drafted this exception, it cited an example where a store knowingly sold a gun to someone who was prohibited from owning a gun, such as a convicted felon.
The new state law sought to expand the potential liability of gun companies by creating new regulations for the industry. in 2021 New York has passed a law requiring gun companies to create controls to prevent illegal possession or use of their products. It also says they cannot knowingly or recklessly “contribute to a condition” that endangers public safety.
“Any business that operates in New York must comply with our laws, and if they don’t, they must be held accountable,” said Democratic state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, the law’s chief sponsor.
Several states and cities have used the new liability laws to sue Glock over the design of its pistols, saying they are too easily converted into automatic weapons.
Many of the new laws are based on legal theories from a lawsuit filed against gunmaker Remington by the families of Sandy Hook victims. In the lawsuit, due to which in 2022 73 million was clarified. $, it was alleged that Remington’s marketing violated state consumer protection law.
What’s next?
It’s too early to tell whether the courts will follow the new state laws.
A panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that New York’s law is not expressly prohibited by the Lawful Trafficking in Arms Protection Act, but that ruling is not expected to be the final word. One of the judges, Dennis Jacobs, made it clear that he believed the law was vulnerable to future legal challenges, calling it “just an attempt to end the PLCAA.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, which is controlled 6-3 by Republican-appointed justices, has yet to consider state liability laws, but the gun industry received a boost when the justices unanimously agreed in June to reject a $10 billion lawsuit.
Justice Elena Kagan, the Democratic nominee, wrote in her opinion how Congress enacted the PLCAA to stop lawsuits similar to those brought by Mexico. She said Mexico had not made any convincing case that the companies knowingly aided the arms trade.
“The Court doubts that Congress intended to craft such a broad way out of the PLCAA, and in fact it did not,” she wrote.
___
Associated Press writer Dave Collins contributed to this report.