NEWTOWN, Conn., Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Earlier today, a
unanimous (3-0) District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the May 2006
decision of District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Brook Hedges
dismissing a lawsuit, filed in January 2000, by the District of Columbia
and the families of nine victims of criminal shootings that occurred in the
district. Writing for the district's high court, Associate Judge Michael
William Farrell ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
(PLCAA), signed into law by President Bush in October 2005, required
dismissal of the plaintiffs' lawsuit against 25 firearm manufacturers. The
district and the plaintiffs had sued the manufacturers under the district's
so-called Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act which imposes
automatic and absolute liability on manufacturers for injuries resulting
from criminal shootings in the district, even if, as Judge Farrell
observed, the criminal shootings happened "years after the manufacture or
sale and despite the utmost care taken in the manufacture or sale" of the
firearm.
In upholding the dismissal Judge Farrell noted that Congress' purpose
in passing the PLCAA was to "prohibit [lawsuits] against manufacturers ...
for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms
products ..." The court wrote that allowing the district's lawsuit to
proceed "would, in our view, frustrate Congress' clear intention."
"Today's ruling is very gratifying to members of the firearms
industry," said Lawrence G. Keane, chief spokesperson for the National
Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry's trade
association. "The District of Columbia lawsuit was like blaming car makers
for drunk-driving accidents."
In passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress
understood that junk lawsuits like the district's defied common sense and
were an abuse of the judicial system that threatened to bankrupt a
responsible and law-abiding industry. The ruling is another major setback
for gun control groups, principally the Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, which pursued and funded many of the municipal lawsuits against
the firearms industry.
The appellate court also rejected the district's claim that the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was unconstitutional. In
rejecting the district's arguments, the court wrote, "Congress was
especially concerned with lawsuits that have been commenced seeking money
damages and other relief against manufacturers and sellers of firearms for
harms caused by the misuse of their products by others, including
criminals, and with the threat to interstate commerce of thus imposing
liability on an entire industry for the harm solely caused by others."
SOURCE National Shooting Sports Foundation
back to top
