Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
Enacted by	United States Congress
Enacted	2005
Public law	109-92
Statutes at large	119 Stat. 2095
Introduced by	Jim Sensenbrenner (House), Mike DeWine (Senate)
Signed by	George W. Bush
Signed date	2005-10-26

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a United States federal statute that limits civil liability actions against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms and ammunition. The law was enacted during the administration of George W. Bush after passage by the 109th United States Congress and has been central to litigation involving Smith & Wesson, Remington Arms, and other firearms firms. Its enactment prompted debate among lawmakers, advocacy groups, and litigants including Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, National Rifle Association, Everytown for Gun Safety, and state attorneys general.

Background

Debates preceding the Act involved high-profile events and organizations such as the Columbine High School massacre aftermath, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and earlier litigation following the Waco siege and the Ruby Ridge standoff. State lawsuits against manufacturers arose after incidents including violent crimes in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, prompting involvement by officials such as Eliot Spitzer and Bill Richardson. Academic analyses from institutions like Harvard University, Yale University, Stanford Law School, and Columbia Law School compared tort exposures to precedent set by cases involving Ford Motor Company and Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Advocacy organizations including American Civil Liberties Union, Gun Owners of America, and The Heritage Foundation influenced public commentary along with media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN.

Provisions of the Act

Key provisions restrict civil actions against firearms industry entities, carving out exceptions for cases of defective design similar to precedent from Restatement (Second) of Torts, and for violations of federal criminal statutes such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The statute defines covered defendants including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers and addresses causes of action like negligence and public nuisance that had been pursued in suits against companies including Beretta USA and Colt's Manufacturing Company. The Act preserves certain remedies related to contracts and warranties, and allows actions for product liability under state law while preempting suits based on the criminal misuse of a firearm obtained lawfully, a distinction debated in commentary from Cornell Law School, University of Chicago Law School, and Georgetown University Law Center.

Legislative History and Passage

The bill was introduced in the 109th United States Congress and advanced through committees including the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sponsors such as Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner and Senators Mike DeWine marshaled support from Republican leaders including Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist, while Democratic figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid featured in floor debates opposing it. Lobbying by the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and corporate interests like Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation competed with advocacy from Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and state attorneys general led by figures such as Tom Daschle and Eliot Spitzer. President George W. Bush signed the Act into law on October 26, 2005.

Legal Challenges and Court Decisions

Litigation over the statute reached the United States Supreme Court in cases touching on jurisdictional and preemption questions; it was a factor in decisions and filings in courts including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and district courts in states like California, New York, and Connecticut. Notable defendants and plaintiffs included corporations such as Remington Arms Company and municipalities like the City of New Haven. The law was interpreted in contexts involving cases like those challenging public nuisance claims and suits grounded in state common law, and courts considered interplay with federal statutes such as the Protection from Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (name not linked per constraints), federal preemption doctrines articulated in cases like Wyeth v. Levine and statutory interpretation principles from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc..

Impact and Effects

The Act affected the litigation strategies of companies such as Daniel Defense, SIG Sauer, and Glock Ges.m.b.H.. Insurers like AIG and law firms including Kirkland & Ellis adjusted coverage and defense postures. Municipalities and counties such as Cook County and Suffolk County shifted tactics, while public policy research by centers like Brookings Institution, Cato Institute, Urban Institute, and RAND Corporation examined economic and public-safety impacts. The law influenced markets in states including Texas, Florida, and Arizona and was cited in merger and acquisition activity involving firms such as Cerberus Capital Management.

Criticism and Support

Supporters included National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and many Republican members of United States Congress, who argued it protected lawful commerce and constitutional rights cited alongside analyses from Heritage Foundation commentators and business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Critics—such as Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, Democratic lawmakers including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and several state attorneys general—contended it limited victims' access to remedies and accountability, echoing arguments from scholars at Yale Law School, Harvard Kennedy School, and civil rights groups like NAACP.

Amendments and Related Legislation

Subsequent legislative and regulatory developments referenced statutes such as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, the National Firearms Act, and proposals debated during sessions of the 110th United States Congress and later Congresses. State-level responses in jurisdictions including Connecticut, California, and New York State Assembly led to complementary measures and lawsuits; local ordinances in places like San Francisco and New York City also interacted with federal immunity provisions. Related proposals and hearings featured testimony before committees including House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee and advocacy by organizations such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Category:United States federal legislation