Source: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws/gun-industry-immunity-statutes/
Timestamp: 2016-07-23 19:12:58
Document Index: 700904168

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7901', '§ 7902', '§ 7903', '§ 7903', '§ 240', '§ 922']

Gun Industry Immunity Statutes | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4
The PLCAA was enacted by Congress under its power to regulate interstate commerce. There have been several constitutional challenges to the PLCAA, but to date none have been successful.5
There are several reported decisions involving the third exception to the PLCAA, commonly referred to as the “predicate exception.” The predicate exception applies when the plaintiff proves that a manufacturer or seller knowingly committed a violation of an underlying statute, referred to as a “predicate statute,” that is “applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm or ammunition.
There have been several reported decisions interpreting the “predicate exception” and the results have been mixed. The only two federal appellate courts to consider the issue – the Second and Ninth Circuits – have both found in split decisions that the PLCAA barred claims brought under generally applicable public nuisance statutes. The same result has been reached by state courts in Alaska and Illinois and a federal district court in Washington, D.C.
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008): The City of New York filed a lawsuit against various firearms manufacturers and sellers for creating a public nuisance. A public nuisance is a state law tort action (though codified in a New York statute) which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knowingly or recklessly maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons.6 The City alleged that firearms suppliers created a public nuisance by “failing to take reasonable steps to inhibit the flow of firearms into illegal markets.”
The legal issue presented was whether New York’s public nuisance statute – a statute which applies generally to any public nuisance – was “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms. The City maintained that the statute could be applied to the sale or marketing of firearms and, as a result, was “applicable” under the PLCAA. The firearms suppliers, however, took the position that the predicate exception “was intended to include statutes that specifically and expressly regulate the firearms industry.”
Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009): In another 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit reached a similar holding with respect to California’s public nuisance statute. It considered the same arguments faced by the Second Circuit, in particular whether the word “applicable” meant “capable of being applied” or whether it meant statutes that “target the firearms industry specifically.” Ultimately, while the court “sympathized” with the three young children and federal employee who were shot by guns manufactured by the defendants, it found that the PLCAA was “intended to preempt general tort theories of liability” like public nuisance statutes.
Estate of Charlot v. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2009): In this case, the plaintiffs represented the estate of a victim of the “DC sniper,” who had killed the victim with an assault weapon manufactured by the defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that their suit for damages should proceed under the PLCAA’s predicate exception based on defendants’ violation of a DC ordinance imposing strict tort liability on manufacturers, importers, and dealers of assault weapons and machine guns.
The district court found that DC’s strict liability ordinance was not a predicate law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms because the defendant “cannot be said to have violated the [ordinance] simply by lawfully selling a gun” to a dealer. Though the plaintiffs argued that the ordinance’s requirement to compensate for injuries “presuppose[d] a violation of a statutory duty,” the court disagreed and found that the ordinance merely “imposes a duty to pay compensation.” Because the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege facts showing that defendants had knowingly violated another federal or state law relating to the sale or marketing of firearms, the PLCAA preempted their suit.
Adames v. Sheehan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009): The Illinois Supreme Court found that the PLCAA preempted a claim for design defects, failure to warn, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against firearms manufacturers. One young boy was playing with his father’s gun and accidentally shot his friend.
The Illinois Supreme Court found those claims pre-empted by the PLCAA. The plaintiffs asserted that the fifth exception to the PLCAA – permitting certain design defect claims – was applicable, but the court found it was not because the child’s death was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, and therefore was preempted.
Noble v. Shawnee Gun Shop, Inc., 409 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013): In this consolidated case, plaintiffs sued a gun shop for negligently entrusting firearm ammunition and magazines to a purchaser who later used the items to shoot and kill two individuals. The state Appeals Court found that while the PLCAA “may exempt negligent entrustment claims from mandatory dismissal under federal law, it does not affirmatively authorize or establish such claims — it simply does not extinguish them . . . . [Plaintiffs] must look to some other source of law to establish a cause of action falling within the Act’s negligent entrustment exception.” Because the court found that Missouri law held that a seller of chattels could not be held liable for negligent entrustment, the court found that the PLCAA preempted plaintiffs’ claim.
Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2013): This case arose when a vagrant took a rifle off a gun store shelf when the shopkeeper, Coxe, was not looking and left $200 in cash. Coxe called the police and attempted to find the vagrant himself. The vagrant then shot a 26 year old house painter, Simone Kim, with the firearm. Kim’s family then sued the gun store for wrongful death, claiming that: 1) Coxe was negligent per se and knowingly violated various federal statutes regulating the sale and marketing of firearms; and that 2) Coxe negligently entrusted the vagrant with the gun.
Phillips v. Lucky Gunner, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39284 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015): In this case, the parents of a victim of a mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater sued various internet retailers for negligence, negligent entrustment, and creating a public nuisance for allegedly selling the shooter ammunition and other equipment used in his attack without reasonable safeguards to prevent dangerous people from purchasing their wares. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants knowingly violated predicate municipal ordinances prohibiting unlawful carry, possession, and discharge of firearms, and a predicate federal criminal statute prohibiting “any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”7).
Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. App. 2007): The City of Gary, Indiana brought a public nuisance claim against various gun manufacturers and distributors. Specifically, the City alleged that the defendants knowingly sold guns to straw purchasers who, in turn, sold guns to known criminals. The evidence supporting the claim was derived from a sting operation conducted by the City’s police department.
City of New York v. Bob Moates’ Sport Shop, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 237 (E.D.N.Y. 2008): The City of New York brought an equitable civil action against out of-state gun retailers for allegedly creating a public nuisance by illegally and negligently furnishing firearms to prohibited persons that were then trafficked into New York City. The court ruled that the PLCAA did not preempt the City’s claim because the City had alleged and proffered evidence supporting the conclusion that defendants’ participation in straw purchases violated predicate federal statutes specifically relating to the sale and marketing of firearms, as well as a predicate state statute declaring that any unlawfully possessed, transported or disposed handgun is a nuisance.
Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 952 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2012), amended by 103 A.D.3d 1191 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2013): Plaintiff, a high school student, brought suit against the manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of the Hi-Point 9-mm semi-automatic gun used by his shooter, who had misidentified the plaintiff as a rival gang member. In the Complaint, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the gun used to shoot him was knowingly and negligently distributed to a prohibited felon who was using straw purchasers to obtain large numbers of handguns. The complaint also alleged that defendants negligently entrusted the gun to individuals they knew or should have known would create an unreasonable risk of physical injury to others; committed negligence per se by violating various federal and state gun laws; created a public nuisance by distributing a large number of guns into the illegal gun market and selling them to that market; and knowingly violated federal, state, and local enactments.
Notes15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. ⤴15 U.S.C. §§ 7902(a), 7903(5). ⤴The PLCAA gives two examples of conduct which falls under this so-called “predicate” exception: 1) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product; and 2) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii). ⤴15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A). ⤴See, e.g., Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting separation of powers, due process, equal protection and takings challenges); City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A., Corp. 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008) (rejecting First and Tenth Amendment challenges as well as separation of powers challenge); Estate of Charlot v Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. 628 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.D.C. 2009) (rejecting separation of powers challenge); Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2013) (rejecting separation of powers challenge); Adames v. Sheahan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009) (rejecting Tenth Amendment challenge). ⤴See N.Y. Penal Law § 240.45. ⤴See 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3 ⤴ 117,000