CT Judge Grants Immunity to Bushmaster, Case Sought to Gut PLCAA

Justice Lawyer Judge Gavel
CT Judge Grants Immunity to Bushmaster, Case Sought to Gut PLCAA
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Washington, DC – -(Ammoland.com)- On January 26, 2015, survivors of victims killed by a deranged man at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut sued the maker and distributor of the firearm he used in his crimes.

Just this week, a judge issued a ruling in the case, Soto v. Bushmaster, that held the defendants were entitled to immunity from the suit.

The defendants in the case originally asked the court to dismiss the complaint under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which was enacted in 2005 to prohibit frivolous suits against firearm makers for criminal acts committed with their products by unaffiliated third parties. 

In April, the court in the Soto case issued a highly technical ruling that found the defendants had filed the wrong type of motion to invoke the protections of the PLCAA. The court at that time expressed no opinion on the merits of either the complaint or the defenses.

The defendants renewed their claim of immunity under the PLCAA, this time by filing “motions to strike” the plaintiffs’ claims.

In a lengthy decision on the merits, Connecticut Judge Barbara Bellis today granted those motions in their entirety.

Judge Bellis stated in her order: 

Congress, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act … has broadly prohibited lawsuits “against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearm products … by others when the produced functioned as designed and intended.” … The present case seeks damages for harms … that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by [the perpetrator of the Newtown slayings]. Accordingly, this action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.  

The plaintiffs in the case tried to avoid the obvious problems the PLCAA presented for their claims by citing one of the law’s exceptions for “negligent entrustment.” This requires a plaintiff to show that the seller of the product knew, or reasonably should have known, that selling the product to a particular recipient created an unreasonable risk of harm.

In the Newtown case, none of the defendants sold or supplied a firearm directly to the ultimate perpetrator. Instead, the firearm was sold to his mother, who passed the legally required background check. The perpetrator, however, subsequently killed her and stole the firearm he then used in his crimes. 

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claimed the defendants were negligent for entrusting any member of the general public with the Bushmaster XM-15E2S (an AR-15 variant) used in the crime. Despite the fact the firearm was perfectly legal to sell and own under federal and Connecticut law at the time and that AR-15s are America’s most popular and fastest-selling rifles, the plaintiffs insisted that “civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s.”

Had this claim succeeded, it would have not only been the first time a court essentially banned an otherwise legal class of firearms, it would have essentially gutted the protections of the PLCAA by making courts, rather than legislatures, the ultimate arbiters of what firearms are legal to sell.

Fortunately, Judge Bellis understood this was exactly the sort of claim for which the PLCAA was enacted. It would be impossible for businesses to manufacture and sell firearms to the public if courts could decide, after that fact, that even legal gun were too dangerous for any member of the public to own. 

Judge Bellis also rejected other claims under a PLCAA exception that allows for a lawsuit when a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and that violation led to the harms claimed in the suit. For these claims, the plaintiffs cited the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but the court held they had not alleged the sorts of commercial relationships with the defendants necessary to establish a right of action under that law.

The court’s decision is a reminder of the critical importance of the PLCAA to preserving the Second Amendment in America. It should come as no surprise, then, that Hillary Clinton has promised to pursue repeal of the PLCAA if elected to the presidency.  

It should also come as no surprise that the plaintiffs have already expressed their intention to appeal today’s ruling. We will report on further developments as they occur.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 9
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    8 Comment threads
    1 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    6 Comment authors
    AlanEric_CAjamesSilence DogoodSuperG Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    Re Bushmaster, Remington seeking recompense from those filing this ridiculous legal action, a great idea. That said, possibly better yet, how about criminal prosecution of those who brought the ridiculous action in the first place??

    Eric_CA
    Guest
    Eric_CA

    The defendants should seek to recover legal fees from the plaintiffs. That will teach them to file frivolous lawsuits.

    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    Some people, it appears, even having become judges, retain common sense and understanding of the law, it seems.

    james
    Guest
    james

    Pant Suit Nominee wants to bankrupt gun companies. Remember the BLITZ company? They were the largest gas container company in the USA. They had to close their doors forever because of these liability lawsuits, they won all of them but it cost them millions in legal fees and insurance hikes. The cans have the instructions on them but people refuse to read them and ignore the warnings. They would pour gas on a fire and the vapors would ignite, sending the container in midair and drenching others with fuel that then ignited. The product is not defective but the person… Read more »

    james
    Guest
    james

    OK folks, all firearms come with the instructions and you can get them for free if you need them.

    All guns are not designed to kill, they are designed to send a projectile out the end of the barrel.
    Search all the patents from the past, present and even into the future, no mention of killing is
    in any patent for a firearm.

    Guns do not kill, people kill, someone makes the decision to use a firearm to kill somebody.

    Silence Dogood
    Guest
    Silence Dogood

    Elections have consequences. Pillory’s Gun-Hating views will be reflected in the Gun-Hating Federal District Court Justices, Federal Court of Appeals Justices and Supreme Court Justices she appoints. ALL of her appointed Justices will be Gun-Haters and Lefty/Socialist on all other matters. ALL bad for Americans. THIS is the only important issue this November.

    SuperG
    Guest
    SuperG

    I’ll bet the attorney(s) who filed the lawsuit still got paid though.

    VT Patriot
    Guest
    VT Patriot

    At last there is some semblance of legality in CT. Still a long way to go, but it’s an eye opener. They still passed a law that all AR’s and other semi autos as well as mags over 10 rd capacity are a felony to even own. The compliance rate to this law is estimated to be about 5%. The gov ordered the state police to do house to house searches for “illegal” guns and mags. The CTSP gave the finger to the Gov and told him to be the first to knock on the door.

    Eric_CA
    Guest
    Eric_CA

    Sounds like California.