In 2005, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA grants firearms dealers and others immunity from some civil lawsuits. 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 - 7903. The Act includes, inter alia, the following exceptions:
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including
(I) 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 [firearm], or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a [firearm]; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a [firearm], knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the [firearm] was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code[.]
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(ii),(iii).
The scope of the PLCAA and its exceptions is being tested in the courts in several pending cases. In District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court affirmed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants (various manufacturers, importers and distributors of firearms), concluding that the District’s claims under the Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act were barred by the PLCAA. See also Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 421 F. Supp.2d 1274 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under PLCAA). By contrast, in 2007 the Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss a suit against the gun industry brought by the City of Gary, Indiana. The court found that the PLCAA did not apply to the City’s case. Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Similarly, in 2005 a federal district court denied a motion to dismiss a suit brought by the City of New York against gun manufacturers and distributors alleging a public nuisance, finding that the case was not precluded by the PLCAA. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F. Supp.2d 244, 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), appeal pending.
www.lcav.org