No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
States' Rights, Gun Violence Litigation, and Tort Immunity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 January 2021
Abstract
The devastating toll of gun violence has given rise to hundreds of lawsuits seeking justice on behalf of victims and their families. A significant number of challenges against gun companies, however, are blocked by courts' broad reading of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) — a federal statute often interpreted to shield the gun industry from civil liability. This article reexamines PLCAA in light of the Supreme Court's recent federalism caselaw, which counsels courts to narrowly construe federal laws that could otherwise upset the balance of power between states and the federal government. Since PLCAA infringes on traditional areas of state authority, the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence requires lower courts to interpret PLCAA narrowly, to not bar states from imposing negligence, nuisance, product liability, or other common law liability on gun companies. Reading PLCAA in line with federalism principles would preserve states' traditional authority over their civil justice laws, and enable gun violence victims, and their families, to hold gun companies responsible for wrongdoing.
- Type
- Symposium Articles
- Information
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue S4: Gun Violence in America: An Interdisciplinary Examination , Winter 2020 , pp. 83 - 89
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020
References
See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 808,463 (issued Dec. 26, 1905); U.S. Patent No. 439,551 (issued Oct. 28, 1890).Google Scholar
Adames v. Sheehan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903 (2018).Google Scholar
See infra Part II.A; 15 U.S.C. § 7903 (2018).Google Scholar
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 442 (Am. Law Inst. 1965).Google Scholar
See Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., No. 1126 of 2018, 2019 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 4462 (C.P. Jan. 15, 2019); Gilland v. Sportsmen's Outpost, Inc., No. X04CV095032765S, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1320 (Super. Ct. May 26, 2011).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii) (2018).Google Scholar
Wos v. E.M.A. ex rel. Johnson, 568 U.S. 627, 639–40 (2013) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr–McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984)).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Miller, C., “Lawyers, Guns, and Money: Why the Tiahrt Amendment's Ban on the Admissibility of ATF Trace Data in State Court Actions Violates the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment,” Utah Law Review (2010): 665-722, at 665; Nation, G.A. III, “Respondeat Manufacturer: Imposing Vicarious Liability on Manufacturers of Criminal Products,” Baylor Law Review 60, no. 1 (2008): 155-229, at 155.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§ 7901(b)(1)–7902 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7902 (2018).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A) (2018).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v) (2018).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(ii) (2018).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii) (2018).Google Scholar
See Corporan v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, No. 16-2305-JWL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93307 (D. Kan. July 18, 2016); Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 952 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012), amended by 103 A.D.3d 1191 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013); Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. App. 2007).Google Scholar
H.R. Rep. No. 109-124, at 11 (2005).Google Scholar
See Copier v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 138 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 1998); Linton v. Smith & Wesson, 469. N.E.2d 339 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984).Google Scholar
Kelley v. R.G. Indus., Inc., 304 Md. 124 (1985), superseded by statute, Md. Code Ann., Art. 27 § 36-I(h) (West 1990) (repealed).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(7) (2018).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(6) (2018).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(1) (2018).Google Scholar
Compare S. 1805, 108th Cong. § 2(b)(1) (2003), with 15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(l) (2018), and S. 397, 109th Cong. § 2(b)(1) (2005).Google Scholar
Scalia, A. and Garner, B., Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012): at 256-61.Google Scholar
151 Cong. Rec. S9061, S9099 (daily ed. July 27, 2005) (statements of Sen. Craig).Google Scholar
See, e.g., 151 Cong. Rec. S9077 (daily ed. July 27, 2005) (statement of Sen. Hatch).Google Scholar
151 Cong. Rec. S9217 (daily ed. July 28, 2005) (statement of Sen. Cornyn).Google Scholar
151 Cong. Rec. S9077 (daily ed. July 27, 2005) (statement of Sen. Hatch).Google Scholar
See Corporan v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, No. 16-2305-JWL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93307 (D. Kan. July 18, 2016); Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 952 N.Y.S.2d 333 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012), amended by 103 A.D.3d 1191 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013); Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. App. 2007).Google Scholar
Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Minn. v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 461 n. 6 (1981); see also FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 761 (1982); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 256 (1957) (Frankfurter, J. concurring); Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608, 612 (1937).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii) (2018).Google Scholar
Williams, 952 N.Y.S.2d at 261.Google Scholar
Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Ak. 2013).Google Scholar
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991).Google Scholar
U.S. Const. Amend. X.Google Scholar
New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 176 (1992) (quoting Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288 (1981)).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617 (2000).Google Scholar
Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).Google Scholar
Gerken, H., “Our Federalism(s),” William & Mary Law Review 53, no. 5 (2012): 1549-1573, at 1561.Google Scholar
Hills, R.M. Jr., “The Political Economy of Cooperative Federalism: Why State Autonomy Makes Sense and ‘Dual Sovereignty’ Doesn't,” Michigan Law Review 96, no. 4 (1998): 813-944, at 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, W. N. Jr. & Frickey, P.P., “Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules as Constitutional Lawmaking,” Vanderbilt Law Review 45, no. 3 (1992): 593-646, at 612.Google Scholar
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991).Google Scholar
Bond v. U.S., 572 U.S. 844 (2014).Google Scholar
Gregory, 501 U.S. at 456–57.Google Scholar
Id., at 466-67.Google Scholar
Id., at 456-61.Google Scholar
Id., at 460.Google Scholar
Id., at 467.Google Scholar
Eskridge, supra note 44.Google Scholar
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470 (1991).Google Scholar
Id., at 460 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 472 U.S. 234, 242-43 (1985)).Google Scholar
Bond v. U.S., 572 U.S. 844, 849–50 (2014).Google Scholar
Id., at 863 (quoting U.S. v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349–50 (1971)).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii) (2018).Google Scholar
Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460-61 (citing Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 570-71 (1900)).Google Scholar
Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).Google Scholar
Gregory, 501 U.S. at 462 (citing U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 4).Google Scholar
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 255 (1957) (citing Dreyer v. People of State of Illinois, 187 U.S. 71 (1902)).Google Scholar
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 461 n.6 (1981) (citing Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, 77 (1959).Google Scholar
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 776 (1984) (quoting Leeper v. Leeper, 114 N.H. 294, 298 (1974)).Google Scholar
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996) (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 719 (1985)).Google Scholar
Wos v. E.M.A. ex rel. Johnson, 568 U.S. 627, 639-40 (2013) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr–McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984)).Google Scholar
Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 282 (1980). See also Otchkov v. Everett, 12-CV-02042-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 4774645, at *8 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2013), aff 'd, 678 Fed. Appx. 476 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished); Stoianoff v. Commr. of Motor Vehicles, 107 F. Supp. 2d 439, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff ’d sub nom. Stoianoff v. Commr. of Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 12 Fed. Appx. 33 (2d Cir. 2001) (unpublished).Google Scholar
Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 529 (1989).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 7902 (2018).Google Scholar
Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar
See Corley v. U.S., 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009).Google Scholar
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 536 (2004).Google Scholar
See, e.g., U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 137 (2007).Google Scholar
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 467 (1991).Google Scholar
Eskridge, W.N., Gluck, A.R., and Nourse, V.F., Statutes, Regulations, and Interpretations: Legislation and Administration in the Republic of Statutes (West Academic Publishing, 2014): at 512. See also, Frickey, P.P., “Getting from Joe to Gene (McCarthy): The Avoidance Canon, Legal Process Theory, and Narrowing Statutory Interpretation in the Early Warren Court,” California Law Review 93 (2005): 397-464, at 397.Google Scholar
See Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 381-82 (2005).Google Scholar
See supra Part I.B.Google Scholar
Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 529 (1989).Google Scholar
Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., No. 207-WDA-2019, slip op. at 57, (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 28, 2020).Google Scholar
See Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. 358 (2010); Bond v. U.S., 572 U.S. 844 (2014); Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).Google Scholar
572 U.S. 844, 860 (2014).Google Scholar
See, e.g., City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 396-7 (2d Cir. 2008); Adames v. Sheahan, 909 N.E.2d 742, 764-65 (Ill. 2009); Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380, 388-92 (Alaska 2013); Delana v. CED Sales, Inc., 486 S.W.3d 316, 323-24 (Mo. 2016).Google Scholar
Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1481 (2018).Google Scholar
Id., at 1478.Google Scholar
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 461 n.6 (1981).Google Scholar