INTRODUCTION
On October 26, 2005, President George W. Bush and Congress treated the firearms industry to a new shield of liabilityliability shield against civil suits brought by victims, families, and municipalities devastated by gun violence. Plaintiffs who had suits pending against gun or ammunition manufacturers or dealers arising out of third party criminal conduct or unlawful behavior found their suits immediately dismissed. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits these “qualified civil actions” from being brought in any state or federal court. Only a claim that a court deems to fit one of six narrow exceptions may survive; otherwise, a potentially meritorious suit not deemed exceptional will be dead on …show more content…
. . ; (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; (v) an action for death, physical injuries, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or (vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of Title 18 or chapter 53 of Title 26. [Will …show more content…
In March 2000, Smith & Wesson settled with various municipalities and two states, and agreed to numerous distribution and manufacturing practices reforms. [In analysis, will show why these tort suits are super important.] Gun rights groups were infuriated by the settlement and Smith & Wesson’s “weakening” of the firearms industry. The NRA promptly kicked more lobbying efforts into gear, successfully spearheading state legislation that prohibited a number of causes of action from being brought against the firearms industry.
[PLCAA-specific lobbying facts + statistics]
[May touch on Badger Guns landmark jury verdict – also shows why tort suits against firearms industry are important]
[Talked to Prof. Stacy earlier this week – must look closer at cases that instigated legislative response that produced PLCAA. Those are what the court will look at when declaring unconstitutional. New cases won’t really help in that analysis? Must argue that, when Congress enacted statute, there was no legitimate public
On October 26, 2005, President George W. Bush and Congress treated the firearms industry to a new shield of liabilityliability shield against civil suits brought by victims, families, and municipalities devastated by gun violence. Plaintiffs who had suits pending against gun or ammunition manufacturers or dealers arising out of third party criminal conduct or unlawful behavior found their suits immediately dismissed. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits these “qualified civil actions” from being brought in any state or federal court. Only a claim that a court deems to fit one of six narrow exceptions may survive; otherwise, a potentially meritorious suit not deemed exceptional will be dead on …show more content…
. . ; (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; (v) an action for death, physical injuries, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or (vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of Title 18 or chapter 53 of Title 26. [Will …show more content…
In March 2000, Smith & Wesson settled with various municipalities and two states, and agreed to numerous distribution and manufacturing practices reforms. [In analysis, will show why these tort suits are super important.] Gun rights groups were infuriated by the settlement and Smith & Wesson’s “weakening” of the firearms industry. The NRA promptly kicked more lobbying efforts into gear, successfully spearheading state legislation that prohibited a number of causes of action from being brought against the firearms industry.
[PLCAA-specific lobbying facts + statistics]
[May touch on Badger Guns landmark jury verdict – also shows why tort suits against firearms industry are important]
[Talked to Prof. Stacy earlier this week – must look closer at cases that instigated legislative response that produced PLCAA. Those are what the court will look at when declaring unconstitutional. New cases won’t really help in that analysis? Must argue that, when Congress enacted statute, there was no legitimate public