U.S. law curbing gunmakers' liability is unenforceable, Penn. court rules
The ruling opens the door for lawsuits against companies involved in the manufacture and sale of a gun.
A Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled that the federal statute limiting civil liability for the gun industry is “repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” In a sweeping decision, the court’s ruling holds that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act cannot be enforced, allowing the family of a teen killed in an accidental shooting to sue companies involved in the manufacture and sale of the gun.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court on Monday said the federal law, which all but eliminates liability claims for the gun industry, violates principles of federalism outlined in the 10th Amendment and that the U.S. Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the law.
The lawsuit, Gustafson v. Springfield, brought negligence and strict liability claims against gun maker Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store, which sold the handgun involved in the fatal shooting.
Pennsylvania’s ruling is a first for PLCAA cases
Other courts have accepted Congress’ say-so that the PLCAA properly fell under the Commerce Clause because lawsuits against the gun industry would affect interstate commerce. Writing for the court, Judge Deborah Kunselman said that in contrast to these rulings, allowing a federal statute to extinguish state common-law claims simply because there is money involved poses a threat to all of the state’s common-law tort claims.
Instead, Kunselman said the bill didn’t regulate commerce but was simply tort reform.
“If we accept the theory that this lawsuit (or lawsuits in the aggregate) affect interstate commerce, simply because litigation costs money, then every case in state court—including criminal prosecutions, property disputes, and family law matters—would instantly fall under congressional control,” she said. “We are unable and unwilling to surrender the whole body of Pennsylvania law and sovereignty to Congress on such weak grounds.”
Judges John Bender and John Musmanno joined Kunselman’s decision.
Although some civil cases — including one brought by the victims of the Sandy Hook mass shooting — have been allowed to go forward despite the PLCAA, the Superior Court’s decision appears to be the first to hold that the 2005 law is unconstitutional.
Supporting arguments from the court
Kunselman’s decision also rejected the argument that the Second Amendment would offer more protections for the gun industry, saying instead that those rights attach for people and not companies.
“There is no constitutional right to negligently or defectively manufacture or sell firearms or ammunition,” she said. “Nor is there a right to make or sell them in conditions that are less safe than an alternative design, any more than there is a constitutional right to manufacture or sell, say, a Ford Pinto with an exploding gas tank.”
CeaseFirePA’s executive director, Adam Garber, who was not involved in the case, said he is hopeful the decision will put pressure on the gun industry to begin adding common-sense safety features that can help curb unintentional shootings.
“It’s important in further defining how far the Second Amendment can go and limiting it in a way that puts public safety first,” he said.
13-year-old boy slain in tragic gun accident
According to Kunselman, the lawsuit stemmed from the death of J.R. Gustafson, who was 13 years old. Kunselman said Gustafson’s 14-year-old friend fatally shot him after the friend, using his father’s gun, had removed the clip and believed the gun was therefore unloaded. However, a live round was still in the chamber, and the bullet struck and killed J.R.
After being charged with homicide for the incident, the friend eventually pleaded delinquent to involuntary manslaughter.
The Gustafsons sued Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store, alleging the gun was defectively designed because it lacked safety features that would block the gun from firing without the clip attached.
The lawsuit was initially tossed by the trial court, which dismissed arguments that the PLCAA was unconstitutional. The trial court had largely followed precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, according to Kunselman, accepted Congress’ word that the law regulated interstate commerce and therefore did not violate principles of federalism.
However, Kunselman said courts shouldn’t simply take Congress’ word but should look to the law in making that determination. Breaking with the Second Circuit, she relied on the more recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which held that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate exceeded Congress’ commerce clause powers.
“Congress commits the same constitutional overreach in the PLCAA. The act regulates the inactivity of individuals who may never have engaged in a commercial transaction with the gun industry,” she said. “As this case demonstrates, the PLCAA reaches out and pulls J.R. Gustafson and his parents into the financial service of the gun market. It forces them to serve as financial sureties for the negligent acts and omissions of the industry by barring the Gustafsons from filing an otherwise valid lawsuit under the common law of Pennsylvania.”
Who is to blame/?
Carlson Lynch attorney Kelly Iverson and lawyers from Brady, an anti-gun violence nonprofit, represented plaintiffs Mark and Leah Gustafson. John Greiner of Tremba, Kinney, Greiner & Kerr, along with Christopher Renzulli of the Renzulli Law Firm in White Plains, New York, represented Springfield and Saloom.
Iverson said the ruling reiterated the long-standing notion that the Commerce Clause is not an unlimited source of power for the federal government, and said it could be a model for other state courts that consider the constitutionality of PLCAA. She also disagreed with the notion that the ruling would lead to more lawsuits to be filed.
“The death of J.R. could have been prevented if the gun industry used safety features that were available for more than 100 years,” Iverson said. “The floodgates aren’t going to open against gun manufacturers if they’re making their guns safe.”
In a statement to the press, Jonathan Lowy, who is vice president of Brady, said the ruling properly recognized that states have the right to determine whether gun makers can be sued.
“As the court held, there is no right to ‘negligently or defectively manufacture or sell firearms or ammunition,’” Lowy said. “Gunmakers and sellers are no longer immune from the consequences of their unreasonable, irresponsible actions that lead to injury and death. We look forward to proving J.R.’s case in court.”
Neither Greiner nor Renzulli returned a call seeking comment.
Related: