Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
Twenty years after Congress passed a law designed to protect firearm manufacturers from being sued over crimes they didn’t commit, Senate Republicans say anti-gun activists have found new ways to drag the industry into court.
That’s why Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and 15 Senate Republican colleagues introduced the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts (SHOT) Act on Friday.
The legislation would strengthen the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), the 2005 federal law that generally prevents firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from being held liable when criminals misuse lawfully sold firearms.
Supporters say the original law worked but not well enough.
According to Cornyn and the bill’s supporters, anti-gun groups, progressive state governments, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have spent years testing the boundaries of the PLCAA through public nuisance lawsuits and other legal theories designed to get around the law’s protections.
SEE ALSO: 6 Father’s Day Gifts Every Gun Dad Wants
“I am a proud supporter of the PLCAA, which protects our firearms industry from the constant onslaught of frivolous attacks by the Radical Left, progressive officials, and rogue activist judges,” Cornyn said. This legislation would strengthen the PLCAA to ensure it can continue to defend law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights against anti-gun groups’ evolving tactics.
The SHOT Act would attempt to close several of the legal pathways supporters believe have been used to weaken the PLCAA over time.
Among its provisions, the legislation would create a standardized process for removing and dismissing lawsuits prohibited by the PLCAA. It would also require plaintiffs relying on exceptions to the law to plead their claims with greater specificity, including facts related to causation and intent.
Supporters of the bill say that’s exactly the point: stopping expensive lawsuits before companies spend years and millions of dollars fighting claims Congress already said shouldn’t move forward.
The legislation would also create an automatic appeal process when courts refuse to dismiss lawsuits covered by the PLCAA. In addition, firearm companies that successfully assert immunity under the law could recover attorney fees and court costs.
Another major provision would clarify that federal PLCAA protections preempt conflicting state and local laws.
That issue has become increasingly important as several states have enacted public nuisance laws specifically designed to target firearm manufacturers and retailers.
SEE ALSO: This Custom Platypus Shoots Like a Cheat Code
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Virginia have adopted laws that allow lawsuits against firearm companies based on often vague “reasonable controls” standards.
The SHOT Act would also prohibit foreign governments from bringing qualified civil liability actions against firearm companies in U.S. courts.
That provision follows years of litigation brought by the Mexican government against several American firearm manufacturers. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Mexico’s claims against Smith & Wesson and other firearm companies.
The legislation would further expand PLCAA protections to include firearm accessories such as magazines and optics and revise definitions governing which lawsuits may proceed under exceptions to the law.
Think of it as an effort to bulletproof the PLCAA from legal workarounds that either didn’t exist or weren’t anticipated when Congress passed the original legislation two decades ago.
NSSF: Lawsuits Are Being Used as a Gun Control Tool
The National Shooting Sports Foundation quickly endorsed the legislation.
“NSSF applauds Sen. John Cornyn’s leadership in introducing the SHOT Act to strengthen the PLCAA to close manufactured gaps created over time by misguided court decisions that have permitted frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry that a bipartisan Congress intended to prohibit over 20 years ago,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
Keane argued that many of the lawsuits targeting the industry are less about compensation and more about achieving policy goals through the courts.
This lawfare is supported chiefly by gun control activists, anti-gun politicians and large ‘white shoe’ law firms seeking to blame industry members for the criminal and unlawful misuse of legal, well-designed and lawfully sold products,” Keane said. These lawsuits are intended to bankrupt the firearm industry and impose gun control measures through litigation.
NSSF maintains that Congress enacted the PLCAA specifically to stop what it describes as “regulation through litigation” after years of lawsuits seeking to hold firearm manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties.
The organization argues that allowing such lawsuits to proceed forces companies into a “death by a thousand cuts” scenario, where even legally meritless claims can cost millions of dollars to defend.
What Happens Next?
The SHOT Act is cosponsored by Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Ted Budd, Mike Crapo, John Curtis, Steve Daines, Chuck Grassley, Jim Risch, Tim Sheehy, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, Jim Justice, Cynthia Lummis, Shelley Moore Capito, Pete Ricketts, and Bill Cassidy.
Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-KS) has introduced companion legislation in the House.
Supporters of the bill argue this isn’t really about creating new protections. It’s about restoring protections they believe courts and anti-gun activists have spent years trying to erode.
The bigger question now is whether Congress agrees. As always, stay tuned for updates.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
i’m for anything that save tax dollars and saves me money at the register!