In 2005, a truly bipartisan Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act—text here--in response to lawfare against gun makers. Their tactic was suing manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their lawful products by people over whom they had no control or knowledge. It was akin to suing Ford for the damage caused by drunk drivers, an obvious violation of the intent and text of tort law.

Advertisement

It was an evil, but ingenious strategy. Gun makers aren’t among the most prosperous companies, and even if they won nearly every nuisance lawsuit, anti-liberty/gun cracktivists could bankrupt them with legal fees and the judgments handed down by hostile, leftist judges in the suits they lost.

Joe Biden was among the many leftists who have lied about the PLCAA, claiming it prevents any lawsuit against gunmakers and allows “gun violence” blood to run knee deep in the streets. It doesn’t:

Advertisement

PLCAA explicitly states that it does not prevent ‘an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product’—which is the precise type of suit Clinton is referring to regarding unsafe toys. § 7903(5)(A)(v).

Other actions explicitly permitted by PLCAA include actions for breach of contract or warranty, and actions against transferors who know the firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. § 7903(5)(A)(i), (iv). Thus, just like in any other industry, firearm dealers and manufacturers are liable for their own actions. PLCAA simply prevents an innocent law-abiding entity from being civilly liable for ‘the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product’ by another person.

Advertisement

Since 2005, anti-liberty/gun cracktivists have labored to find a way around the PLCAA. Leftist lawfare judges have allowed some bogus suits to proceed, but most have been disallowed. New York State, like several others, came up with a law that allows lawsuits against gun makers based on “public nuisance” and “reasonable controls.” In other words, suits may be brought by alleging the sale of lawful guns is a “public nuisance” or gun makers didn’t institute “reasonable controls” against their criminal misuse.  That’s an obvious violation of the intent and text of the PLCAA, but it gives micron-thin legal cover to lawfare judges and prosecutors, and NY Governor Kathy Hochul intends to take full advantage of it:

Advertisement

Graphic: X Post

Hochul is crowing about this:  

Advertisement

The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, Attorney General of New York. The Supreme Court declined review yesterday, leaving a Second Circuit ruling in place.

For now. From Just the News:

Advertisement

The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning for rejecting the case. The decision comes the same day the highest court also declined to take up over a dozen cases as it winds down the term, including an appeal from a 98-year-old federal judge who had been suspended amid mental fitness concerns.

Notice that NBC said the Court “rejects a challenge to a New York Law,” purposely misleading the public. Even though there is a circuit split, which the Supreme Court considers necessary before taking a case, it’s not at all unusual for the Court to deny cert. They hear only a tiny portion of the cases that come before them every year. They did not rule on NY’s law. Their decision not to hear it only leaves the lower court decision in place.

The very real problem is that in the intervening years before the Court decides to hear a case relating to the PLCAA, anti-liberty/gun cracktivists in blue states will do everything they can to harm law-abiding gun owners and to eliminate the availability of guns through as many lawsuits as they can possibly file or provoke.

That’s what the PLCAA was enacted to prevent, but the “by any means necessary” Democrats don’t give a damn about any law, not even the Constitution—particularly not the Constitution—if it gets in their way.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas declared that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.” Tragically, not enough fellow justices appear to share that well-grounded viewpoint. Should Democrats be able to pack the Court, the Second Amendment, as well as the First and every other part of the Constitution preventing them from keeping eternal power, will be ignored or abolished.

They really don’t want to go there. It will not end as they expect.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, lifelong athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer, and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.