Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.
[1] In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers, saying: "You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens.
"[3] In 2000, Smith & Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits.
[6] HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliot Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door".
[9] Remington Arms' four insurance companies[10] paid a $73 million settlement with Sandy Hook plaintiffs in 2021 regarding its alleged violations of state law (specifically Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act).
Although PLCAA protections had been raised by the manufacturer in Sandy Hook negotiations prior to the settlement, a similar but entirely separate case had been declined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 (Remington Arms Co. v.
[17] Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as "... the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law".
Ileto and District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. unsuccessfully sought to have it ruled in violation of the separation of powers and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, by usurping the functions of the judicial branch.
She did not find in the legislative history of the PLCAA an indication that Congress did not intend to bar suits such as the Gustafsons, and that it explicitly required that in cases such as theirs, the shooter's conviction for involuntary manslaughter, a volitional criminal act, be considered the sole cause of the injury, their allegations of product defect notwithstanding.
The trial court had concluded that the statute was a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce on the basis of its title; Kunselman rejected this as facile, "excessive deference grant[ing] Congress license to interpret the Constitution."
Kumselman cited two Supreme Court decisions to this effect: United States v. Lopez, which had invalidated a conviction under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, finding that law went beyond the bounds of regulating interstate commerce, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where a majority of the justices agreed, in separate opinions, that the individual mandate to buy health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional because it compelled participation in interstate commerce.
[26] In July 2021, New York passed a law, Gen Bus L § 898-B (2021), which allowed the state to sue firearm manufacturers and suppliers if, by their business activities, they created or contributed to a health or safety threat to the public.
In the case, National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. v. James, the manufacturers argued that the law was preempted by the PLCAA, violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and was vague.
Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
[46] After the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut, shooting incidents, a renewed effort has been mounted to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to make it possible for victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of grounds.
[60] This viewpoint is contended by certain circles, including the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, which noted that the "PLCAA's purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell.
Likewise, in Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, a federal district court stated (albeit in dicta), "Heller said nothing about extending Second Amendment protection to firearm manufacturers or dealers.
"Additionally, in October 2020 a subpoena was issued by New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal to seek evidence of fraudulent advertising by Smith & Wesson, thereby falling under violation of consumer protection and public safety laws.