On Tuesday, an 18-year-old shooter attacked a Texas elementary school, killing 19 children and two teachers in a mass shooting, reigniting a national debate about gun regulation and potential legal culpability for guns makers.
Since 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has given gun manufacturers and dealers near-total immunity from punishment for crimes committed with their weapons. After other communities filed lawsuits seeking to make corporations accountable for gun violence, the bill was approved.
The PLCAA has many sections that allow a firm to be sued, including charges that it has deliberately broken laws connected to the marketing of the product used in the shooting.
In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that federal law allowed some of the relatives of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre victims to file a lawsuit. The family sued Remington for allegedly pushing its Bushmaster gun for criminal use in violation of the state’s marketing statute.
Remington, which had twice declared bankruptcy during the litigation, agreed to pay the families $73 million in February, marking the first time such a settlement had been reached.
The PLCAA has many sections that allow a firm to be sued, including charges that it willfully violated laws relating to the marketing of the product involved in the shooting.
In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit by some of the relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy in 2012 was allowed under federal law. Remington was sued by the families for allegedly pushing its Bushmaster weapon for criminal use in violation of the state’s marketing statute.
Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million in February, the first settlement of its type.
Following the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision, a slew of new cases have been filed, all of which are attempting to use PLCAA exclusions.
Victims of a mass shooting at a California synagogue in 2019 sued Smith & Wesson, alleging that the corporation irresponsibly marketed the shooter’s AR-15 type rifle. Last year, a state court judge dismissed the company’s assertion that the litigation was banned by the PLCAA.
Meanwhile, the Texas Supreme Court found earlier this year that PLCAA did not shield Luckygunner.com, an online ammunition distributor, from a lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of a 2018 high school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. The corporation is accused of breaking a regulation that prohibits the sale of ammunition to minors.
Last year, Mexico filed a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, Sturm, Ruger & Co, and other handgun manufacturers for the influx of guns from the United States. According to the complaint, the firms manufactured, marketed, and sold military-style assault rifles with the knowledge that they would be used by drug cartels to commit murders and kidnappings.
The corporations contend that they cannot be held accountable for crimes committed in Mexico as a result of legitimate sales of their products in the US.
The judge in charge of the case in Boston has expressed concern that allowing the case to go forward may jeopardise PLCAA.
Gun rights activists have also used the courts to challenge weapons regulations, and the United States Supreme Court is set to rule on a case involving New York’s concealed handgun laws.
In November, the conservative court seemed during arguments poised to overturn the statute.
Other cases challenging limits include assault-style weapon prohibitions in California and Maryland, which challengers claim violate the constitutional right to bear guns.
