A cadre of gun-rights groups has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States, urging the court to hear a case challenging a New York law that undermines the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
On March 30, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Independence Institute filed a brief in the case NSSF v. James, which challenges the continued filing of abusive public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers.
Although the PLCAA generally bars such claims, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, concluding that it qualifies as a predicate statute under PLCAA and, therefore, that claims brought under it may proceed under the statute’s exception for certain state-law violations. The recently filed amicus brief argues that the circuit court’s decision undermines Congress’s judgment in enacting PLCAA by allowing precisely the type of coordinated, abusive litigation the statute was enacted to address and prevent.
“Unable to secure desired legislative restrictions, anti-gun lobbies and governments brought coordinated lawsuits designed to impose crippling liability on firearms manufacturers and sellers for the criminal acts of third parties,” the brief argues. “These suits did not seek to remedy traditional legal wrongs, but rather to regulate and ultimately eliminate the firearms industry through costly litigation.”
As the brief points out, Congress enacted the PLCAA to halt such schemes.
“The statute reflects Congress’s considered judgment that federal legislation was required to protect lawful commerce, the firearms industry, constitutional rights, the separation of powers, and national security from abusive litigation,” the brief continues. “The decision … disregards that judgment and allows states to nullify PLCAA by repackaging prohibited claims under novel state-law theories …”
Kostas Moros, SAF director of legal research and education, said in a news release announcing the filing that the British efforts to suppress arms commerce in the years before the Revolution were correctly understood by the Founders as a deliberate attempt to disarm and enslave the American people.
“Congress enacted the PLCAA to stop the modern equivalent—coordinated litigation campaigns designed to bankrupt the firearms industry through meritless lawsuits,” Moros said. “New York’s law invites precisely the kind of abusive end-run around federal protections that Congress sought to prevent. We urge the Court to grant review and reaffirm PLCAA’s vital safeguards for lawful commerce and Second Amendment rights.”
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, said it’s important that the Supreme Court chooses to take up this critical challenge.
“This case is essential because it defends the firearms industry against efforts to achieve gun control through the courts rather than through the legislative process,” Gottlieb said. “SAF is proud to join the NRA and Independence Institute in urging the Supreme Court to protect the industry that enables Americans to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”