The following are examples of legal efforts to hold manufacturers accountable for mass shootings.
U.S. GUN COMPANIES ARE GENERALLY PROTECTED FROM LAWSUITS
Since 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has provided gun manufacturers and dealers with near-complete immunity from liability for crimes committed with their products. The law was enacted in response to lawsuits filed by several cities seeking to hold corporations liable for gun violence.
CAN THERE BE EXCEPTIONS?
Yes. The PLCAA contains several provisions that allow a company to be sued, including claims that the company knowingly violated laws relating to the marketing of the product involved in the shooting.
In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that federal law allowed some of the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to sue. The families sued Remington for allegedly violating state marketing laws by promoting its Bushmaster rifle for criminal use.
Remington, which declared bankruptcy twice during the case, agreed to pay the families $73 million in February, the first settlement of its kind.
In addition, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that PLCAA did not bar Gary from pursuing a 1999 lawsuit against firearms manufacturers under the state's public nuisance laws. Nuisance laws can be used to hold a defendant liable for harm done to a public good, such as community safety, and the city claimed the manufacturers were aware of illegal handgun sales but did nothing to stop them.
However, two federal appeals courts have ruled that PLCAA precludes public nuisance lawsuits because they do not apply to the sale or marketing of firearms.
OTHER LEGAL CASES
Following the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, other cases were filed that are currently making their way through the courts, attempting to capitalize on PLCAA exemptions.
Victims of a mass shooting at a California synagogue in 2019 sued Smith & Wesson, alleging that the company negligently marketed the shooter's AR-15-style rifle. Last year, a state court judge rejected the company's argument that the lawsuit was barred by PLCAA.
Meanwhile, the Texas Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Luckygunner.com, an online ammunition seller, was not protected by PLCAA from a lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of a 2018 shooting at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas. The company is accused of knowing violating a law that makes selling ammunition to minors illegal.
Last year, Mexico sued Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, Sturm, Ruger & Co, and other firearm manufacturers for the influx of weapons from the United States. According to the lawsuit, the companies designed, marketed, and distributed military-style assault weapons with the knowledge that they would arm drug cartels, fueling murders and kidnappings.
The companies claim they cannot be held liable for crimes committed in Mexico as a result of legal sales of their products in the United States.
The judge in charge of the case in Boston has expressed concern that allowing the case to proceed could jeopardize PLCAA.
RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION
In July, New York's governor signed legislation allowing the state, cities, or individuals to sue firearm sellers, manufacturers, and distributors for causing a public nuisance.
On Wednesday, a U.S. judge ruled against the firearms industry, which had sued to stop the law, claiming it was prohibited by the PLCAA.
Several hours after the Texas shooting, California senators approved a bill that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, imports, or sells assault weapons and untraceable ghost guns.
The bill, which has the support of Governor Gavin Newsom, is modeled after a Texas anti-abortion "vigilante" law that is intended to circumvent conflicting federal law. It will now be considered by the state legislature.
LAWSUITS OPPOSING GUN RESTRICTIONS
Gun rights activists have also used the courts to challenge firearms restrictions, and the United States Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving New York's restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public.
The conservative court arrived at arguments in November prepared to overturn the law.
Other cases challenging restrictions include assault-style weapon bans in California and Maryland, which challengers claim violate the constitutional right to bear arms.