Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act


The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903.

Background

In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.
In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers, saying: "You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens." The city of Bridgeport, Connecticut, also sued several gun companies. Mayor Joseph Ganim said that the city's action aimed at "creating law with litigation.... That's the route that we're going because always very effectively, with big money, lobbied the legislature and kept laws from being passed."
In 2000, Smith & Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits. The agreement required Smith & Wesson to sell guns only through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much wider potential impact than just Smith & Wesson.
HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door".
In January 2005, New York City passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures.

Legislative history

A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65–31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 in favor and 144 opposed.
The final bill passed only after adding an amendment that mandated safety locks on handguns, and after preventing the renewal of the assault weapons ban from being added.
It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109–92. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as "... the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law".

Lawsuits

Since the law's passage, there have been two cases taken to a jury trial for damages. In the first, a jury found in favor of a gun store in Alaska after a gun purchased by Jason Coday was used in a murder. The second resulted in a six million dollar verdict against Badger Guns after guns negligently sold there were used to shoot police officers.
In 2016, a Missouri gun store settled for $2.2 million, for selling a gun to a schizophrenic woman who later killed her father, after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the sale was "negligent entrustment" and therefore was not protected by the PLCAA. The store had previously been warned by the woman's parents that she was mentally unstable, and asked that she not be sold a gun.
In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. However, on March 14, 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, allowing plaintiffs to continue their suit against Remington. The US Supreme Court declined to intervene in ongoing litigation that had not been decided.
A lawsuit by victims of the Sutherland Springs shooting against the gun shop that sold the gun has been allowed to proceed because the shooter used a Colorado driver's license as identification to purchase the gun with a 30-round magazine. In sales of firearms to the resident of another state, the sale must comply with the laws of both the seller's and the purchaser's states. Colorado law prohibits the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.

Dismissed suits

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Ileto v. Glock, ending a lawsuit against Glock by the family of victims in the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting.
The Brady Center and families of victims of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting sued Lucky Gunner, the online store where some of the ammunition was purchased. Federal judge Richard Paul Matsch dismissed the charges. He ordered the plaintiffs to pay Lucky Gunner's legal fees under a separate Colorado law, HB 000–208.

Renewed interest

After the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut, shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds.

2016 election

During the 2016 United States presidential election, the act became a campaign issue, particularly within the Democratic Party primaries.
Hillary Clinton stated that she would repeal the law if elected, saying: "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences." Shortly after Clinton made this claim, fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability.
Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." He changed his position somewhat in January 2016, saying that he would favor a partial repeal of the law.

2020 election

In 2020, Bernie Sanders was again attacked for voting in favor of the law, especially by Joe Biden.

Criticism

While gun violence continues as a major sociopolitical issue in the United States, the firearms industry has negated civil action lawsuits from gun violence victims due to protection from liability that federal law grants the business. According to the Center for American Progress, the PLCAA prevents "victims of gun violence from pursuing well-established legal claims against irresponsible gun manufacturers and sellers—without presenting an alternative means for the victims to be compensated." Exceptions within the law that allow lawsuits to go forward fall under "negligent entrustment" and "predicate exception" actions, which target negligent retailers or manufacturers who violated local statutes applicable to the sale of firearms, but these cases are difficult to prove and rarely clear the PLCAA threshold in court.
A 2007 report in the American Journal of Public Health states that the PLCAA is potentially dangerous to the public health because it removes both regulation and ligitation as incentives for firearm companies to make their products safer.
This viewpoint is contended by certain right wing circles, including the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, which noted that the "PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐​control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐​ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell."
However, legal scholars have rebutted that advocates of the PLCAA failed to note any change in financial implication for the firearm industry. A law review by the Southern Methodist University of Dallas, Texas noted that: “PLCAA opponents... argue that the so-called "tidal wave of litigation" used to justify PLCAA's passage is exaggerated in terms of both scale and cost. They point to Congressional debates examining the SEC filings of gun giants like Smith & Wesson & Ruger. Rather than revealing the hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation costs purported to exist by PLCAA supporters, they expose multi-million dollar sales figures, but only de minimis legal expenses. Also de minimis, according to such opponents, are the number of suits faced by the gun industry, accounting for only fifty-seven out
of the ten million torts suits filed between 1993 and 2003... many seek injunctive relief only and therefore could not possibly have the economically crippling effects which PLCAA backers fear.“