The Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act was created to prevent frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, predicated on the actions of third parties. In other words, if your gun blows up because of a manufacturing flaw, you can sue. If some twerp with a stolen gun shot you in the leg, you can sue, just not the manufacturer of the firearm used.
When an insurance company settled with the families of Sandy Hook victims, it opened a floodgate. States suddenly thought they had a chance to get around the PLCAA by attacking gun companies through what they saw as vulnerabilities in the law.
Maryland was one such state, and the NSSF has been fighting back. Now, the group is asking a district court to block implementation of the law.
NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit following the U.S. District Court of Maryland’s decision dismissing NSSF’s lawsuit challenging Maryland’s law that intended to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
…
Recognizing AG Brown will wield House Bill 947 to sue industry members for their lawful commerce and the grave danger the law’s unconstitutionally vague “reasonableness” standard for creating or contributing to a “public nuisance” poses to lawful commerce, NSSF filed this lawsuit on behalf of its over 10,000 members. A wide variety of NSSF members – including manufacturers, distributors and retailers – filed declarations in support of NSSF’s motion for a preliminary injunction because of concerns they face liability under House Bill 947’s vague and subjective requirement to “establish and implement reasonable controls” to prevent criminals from misusing their products.
The district court concluded that NSSF had standing to challenge the law on behalf of its members based on AG Brown’s enforcement action against NSSF-member GLOCK, Inc. However, it then concluded that the court should abstain from further proceedings and dismiss the case without prejudice because it was concerned that entering any relief for NSSF would constitute interference in the state court action AG Brown brought against GLOCK, Inc. NSSF is now appealing that dismissal.
Even if the Glock suit is similar, there was never any harm in simply issuing an injunction. Maintaining the previous status quo would have been simple.
Unfortunately, while I like federalism, this automatic deference to state courts gets more than a little annoying. I’m not an attorney, so I can’t get into it beyond that, but considering I think we all know how a Maryland court will rule, it’s just a matter of time before the federal judicial system will be involved anyway.
States like Maryland are clearly trying to poke holes in the PLCAA because they’ve never liked the idea that people can’t sue firearm manufacturers into oblivion. The goal was always to make it too costly to sell firearms to the public or to bankrupt companies altogether. That’s why the PLCAA was passed, and they didn’t like how it blocked them.
That’s all this is about. It’s not about accountability because none of these companies is doing anything wrong. Glock didn’t want to redesign a firearm that was proven. Sure, they finally did after several lawsuits…and how did that work out?
I hope the NSSF prevails here, because I’m more than a little sick of states ignoring the PLCAA because they simply don’t like it.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
