Lawful Businesses Should Not be Liable for Harms Caused by Businesses’ Adversaries

Justice Decency Integrity Law Order Courts
FPC, Law Professors, and Georgia First Amendment Foundation File Amicus Brief Arguing that Lawful Businesses Should Not be Liable for Harms Caused by the Businesses’ Adversaries

U.S.A.-( Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important amicus brief with the Georgia Court of Appeals in McBrayer, et al. v. The Governors Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc., et al. The brief, authored and filed by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and Georgia attorney Darren Summerville, with the help of UCLA law student Madison Way, is available at

The Governors Ridge Property Owners Association brought a nuisance action against the owner and operators of an OB-GYN clinic, arguing that the clinic was a nuisance due to the anti-abortion protestors who regularly gathered outside the office. A jury agreed—even though the medical clinic was lawfully operated and properly licensed—and found the owner and operators liable for over $1.5 million in damages.

FPC, along with a diverse group of law professors and the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, filed an amicus brief in support of the clinic’s owner and operators. The brief argued that “under the lower court’s reasoning, many controversial businesses and organizations—churches, synagogues, mosques, bookstores, gun stores, political party offices, and more—may face economic ruin and be forced to shut down because they are targeted by protesters or criminals (or are even just morally disapproved of by their neighbors, despite being completely legal). Opponents could picket or attack those entities until neighbors file a nuisance lawsuit, forcing the opponents’ targets to either pay massive damages or to abate the nuisance by closing up shop, which is the opponents’ goal.” This would “create[] incentives for people to commit crimes; and . . . undermine[] the legal and constitutional rights of law-abiding businesses and their customers.”

“Regardless of how one feels about a particular business, if it is a lawful business, it should not have to bow to the demands of criminals or even those who oppose it on moral grounds,” noted FPC’s Director of Research Joseph Greenlee. “The trial court’s decision set a dangerous precedent for gun shops and firing ranges, which also sometimes face opposition on political and moral grounds, so we hope the court of appeals will reverse that decision.”

Professor Volokh added, “I very much appreciate Firearms Policy Coalition’s participating in this case — their presence helps show the court that this case is about the broad right to conduct a lawful business — and about a broad range of constitutional rights — and not just an ‘abortion clinic’ case.”

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space, having recently filed two United States Supreme Court petitions for certiorari (review) (Folajtar v. Attorney General and Holloway v. Attorney General) and several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), the State of Pennsylvania’s and Allegheny County’s carry restrictions (Cowey v. Mullen), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Firearms Policy Coalition

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Already the left uses violent protests to prevent conservative groups from either getting permits to gather, or to shut down the gathering as soon as it starts. If the ruling in Georgia is allowed to stand, Soros and those like him will fund Portland- and Seattle-style riots at every conservative organization and every business owned by a prominent conservative, and they will then contact the neighbors and offer to pay for their legal representation to sue the victims of the riots.

Our republic is crumbling.


if this holds, this ruling will be used to do away with the PLCAA. same idea, hold a third party liable for criminal acts.


This twisted ruling is outrageous on its face. There have been many cases fought to presreve the right of protestors to demonstrate at, specifically, those baby death clinics, as it is our First Ammendment protected RIGHT to do so. Those cases all involved demonstrators limiting their presence to publically accessible areas near the clinics. The courts have generally oreserved their right to be present and active on sidewalks, public parking areas, streets, etc. The clinics have vigourously fought to have the right of these people to even be present revoked. In some cases, the courts have dictated that the demonstrators… Read more »

Divino Vocamen

So the Court allowed ( according to the article ) a decision , that someone is responsible for the behaviour of someone else over whom they have no control because the one they have no control over does not like them ? So …if there are “protests ” against the Judge for allowing this decision , should the Judge be removed from the Bench ? or required to pay the protesters ? It does appear from the article that the Judge should have made a Ruling of a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ..reversing the decision ( or an earlier simple… Read more »


Possibly this approach could be used against nuisance judges and politicians, anti-gun organizations?!?!?!?! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Boxer dog

Does this make a precedent for congress being responsible for the “insurrection”?