HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Two decades after a Republican-controlled Congress provided gun manufacturers with immunity from lawsuits related to the misuse of their firearms, Democratic-led states frustrated by ongoing gun violence have found a path to challenge that legal shield.
Since 2021, 10 states have enacted laws that facilitate lawsuits against gun makers and retailers for failing to prevent firearms from being sold to individuals prohibited from ownership or suspected of intending harm.
The latest addition to these laws, effective this month in Connecticut, allows for litigation against firearms manufacturers and retailers that do not take appropriate measures against illegal sales.
These measures have drawn ire from gun rights advocates who argue that states are attempting to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which protects gun manufacturers from legal liability related to criminal acts committed with their products.
Critics, like Lawrence G. Keane from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, claim the new state laws are unconstitutional and assert that their intention is merely to harass the gun industry financially.
Supporters of the measures, including gun control groups, contend they establish clearer guidelines for companies to prevent illegal selling practices. Po Murray, chair of the Newtown Action Alliance, noted that these new laws can not only help survivors but also instill greater responsibility within the gun industry, potentially preventing future tragedies.
Understanding Federal Immunity
Following a surge of lawsuits in major cities attempting to hold gun manufacturers accountable for violent crime, the PLCAA was enacted in 2005, aimed at protecting lawful manufacturers from undue liability. This federal law was supported by President George W. Bush, who stated that the focus should be on punishing criminals, not law-abiding manufacturers.
A Shift in Strategy
While the PLCAA provides significant protections, the newly implemented state laws aim to clarify the conditions under which manufacturers might still be liable. For example, they require sellers to devise legitimate controls preventing unlawful usage or possession of firearms.
States like New York have already begun using the new legal frameworks to challenge gunmakers on grounds that their products were designed dangerously. These moves are informed by previous legal battles, including a significant case against Remington relating to the Sandy Hook shooting.
Future Outlook
Despite the recent advancements, the fate of these state laws in the courts remains uncertain. Initial rulings suggest potential vulnerabilities in these laws, signaling that the gun industry expects further legal challenges. The current conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally ruled in favor of gun manufacturers, adding another layer of uncertainty to the future of gun liability laws.
