Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

No Protection for the Law that Protects the Firearm Industry: Supreme Court Passes on PLCAA Case

Monday, November 18, 2019

No Protection for the Law that Protects the Firearm Industry: Supreme Court Passes on PLCAA Case

A law designed to protect the firearm industry from frivolous litigation is now in jeopardy thanks to inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this month passed on a petition to review a case creating a new exception to the law’s protection. The case before the Supreme Court was Remington Arms v. Soto.

It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous or implausible legal theory: a gunmaker intentionally marketed its products to criminals through macho ad copy, patriotic images, and product placement in video games, thus causing the criminal to carry out a mass attack.

It’s particularly ludicrous when the murderer himself stole rather than bought the gun (after killing the person who actually bought it) with no evidence the murderer saw any of the gunmaker’s ads.

In a sane world, this lawsuit would have been recognized as an abuse of the legal system, a cynical exploitation of tragedy for political and ideological ends. That world used to exist under a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA was enacted by Congress in 2005 with broad bipartisan support for the very purpose of stopping coordinated lawsuits seeking to hold the firearm industry liable for the acts of criminals who used guns to commit their offenses. Few of the cases ever had any chance of success in court, but that didn’t matter. Bankrupting the companies by forcing them to defend the suits, or to accept settlements that required “voluntary” adoption of punitive gun control measures, was the real agenda.

There is certainly nothing “unusual” or “extraordinary” about a legal rule that says a business is not responsible for the wrongful acts of a third party that misuses its products, absent some special connection to the offender or the victim. The victim of an accident caused by a drunk driver cannot ordinarily sue the car manufacturer or dealer, for example.

What was unusual was the determination of gun control advocates to press these meritless claims in court, which resulted in Congress making clear with the PLCAA that courts could not create especially unfavorable rules around the manufacturing and selling of guns. The entire point of the law was to ensure activist litigants and courts could not sue the U.S. firearms industry out of business.

As of Nov. 8, however, the sane world of the PLCAA came dangerously closer to an end. That was the day the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that denied a firearm manufacturer the PLCAA’s protection because, so the argument went, the company knowingly engaged in illegal advertising.

That case will now proceed in a Connecticut court. And while even gun control advocates admit the plaintiff’s claim might not prevail at trial (if the case gets to trial at all), it will cost the defendants a king’s ransom to continue fighting the case.    

It’s true the PLCAA was never intended to protect businesses that knowingly flaunt laws governing the sale or marketing of firearms. Congress created narrow exceptions for when the manufacturer or seller violated specific types of gun control laws, sold a firearm to a person the seller knew couldn’t be safely trusted with it, sold a defective product, or violated a contract or warranty relating to the purchase.

These exceptions also included knowingly violating a state or federal statute “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition],” such as making or facilitating false statements in required recordkeeping or disposing of a firearm or ammunition to someone legally prohibited from having it. Both examples relate to provisions in the federal Gun Control Act, indicating that gun-specific laws are what Congress intended the exception to cover.

Yet the plaintiffs in the Remington Arms case sought to get around the PLCAA by claiming that violation of any state or federal statute that could conceivably be applied to the sale or marketing of a firearm should count, whether or not that statute was enacted with firearms or ammunition in mind.

Because the sale of the firearm to the original purchaser in the case complied with all applicable state and federal regulations on firearm sales, the plaintiffs had to stretch the existing bounds of the law to find a statute they could claim was violated. They finally settled on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” The plaintiffs argued that a similar federal law has been interpreted to include ““immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous” advertising.

They then went on to argue that Connecticut law thus effectively prohibits the sorts of advertisements the defendants used to promote their firearms, because those ads were specifically designed to appeal to and incite deranged individuals like the criminal who killed the victims they represent.

In other words, the plaintiffs are essentially claiming that but for the defendants’ supposedly illegal ads, the victims would still be alive.

Even the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized proving that claim may prove to be impossible. But by allowing the case to proceed, the court also empowered the plaintiffs to force the defendants to turn over copious amounts of documents and information about their marketing and advertising strategies. The plaintiffs hope this fishing expedition will turn up material that, if it doesn’t lead to victory in the case, could at least be used to embarrass and shame the defendants in the court of public opinion.

Why the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene when the lawsuit falls squarely into the type of abusive litigation that Congress sought to prevent is unknown. No written opinions on the order were issued by any member of the high court.

The case, however, could set a very ominous precedent, as states across the country have laws similar to CUTPA, and the question of what a company intended with an image or phrase in advertising is an inherently subjective determination.  

What is clear, however, is that the Second Amendment and laws designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms are meaningless if they are not adequately enforced in court. That did not happen here, and future anti-gun opportunists may now have roadmap to navigate around the PLCAA.

TRENDING NOW
NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

Monday, April 1, 2024

NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

NRA Members Among the Largest Class Protected from Draconian Rule

With a Stroke of the Pen, Biden ATF Criminalizes Tens of Thousands of Private Firearm Sellers

News  

Friday, April 12, 2024

With a Stroke of the Pen, Biden ATF Criminalizes Tens of Thousands of Private Firearm Sellers

We have long been warning of the rule the Biden ATF has been preparing to redefine who is considered a firearm “dealer” under U.S. law.  The administration’s explicit objective was to move as close to so-called “universal background ...

Maine: Contact the Governor and Urge Her to Veto All Gun Control Bills!

Thursday, April 18, 2024

Maine: Contact the Governor and Urge Her to Veto All Gun Control Bills!

After a nearly 24-hour marathon legislative session, the Maine House and Senate finally adjourned until "Veto Day" in the coming weeks. 

Colorado: Semi-Auto Ban Passes House and "Sensitive Places" Expansion to be Heard in Committee

Monday, April 15, 2024

Colorado: Semi-Auto Ban Passes House and "Sensitive Places" Expansion to be Heard in Committee

On Sunday, HB24-1292 the semi-auto ban, received final passage in the House and has been transmitted to the Senate where it awaits a committee assignment. 

Colorado: Three Anti-Gun Bills Advance - Contact Representatives Now!

Thursday, April 18, 2024

Colorado: Three Anti-Gun Bills Advance - Contact Representatives Now!

Last night, the Colorado general Assembly continued its attempts to whittle down Second Amendment protections in Colorado. Two anti-gun bills, House Bill 24-1349 and House Bill 24-1353, passed the House Appropriations Committee and have advanced to the House floor, ...

NRA Scores Legal Victory in Dispute with DC Attorney General

News  

Thursday, April 18, 2024

NRA Scores Legal Victory in Dispute with DC Attorney General

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has announced a legal victory in a high-profile governance matter brought by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (DCAG).

Joe Biden Seems to Hate Cannons as Much as He Hates the Truth

News  

Monday, April 15, 2024

Joe Biden Seems to Hate Cannons as Much as He Hates the Truth

For quite some time, we’ve talked about Joe Biden and his gift for gaffes. Whether it is him losing battles with his teleprompter, his train of thought spectacularly derailing, forgetting which politicians have passed away, or simply mumbling ...

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods

If you want to save your Second Amendment rights in Maine, you need you to act NOW. After lengthy debates, the House and Senate passed 72-hour waiting periods by only ONE VOTE in each chamber.

Minnesota: Anti-Gun Legislation Passed in Senate Committee

Thursday, April 18, 2024

Minnesota: Anti-Gun Legislation Passed in Senate Committee

Today, Senate File 4312 and Senate File 5153 were passed in the Senate Finance Committee and could receive a vote on the Senate floor as early as next week. The bills would impose a one-size fits ...

ATF Trafficking Report Reiterates Futility of “Universal” Background Checks

News  

Monday, April 15, 2024

ATF Trafficking Report Reiterates Futility of “Universal” Background Checks

So-called “universal” background checks were back in the news last week. The Biden administration and the regime press were promoting the impression that ATF’s new “engaged in the business” rule closed the non-existent “gun show ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.