First, contrary to some of what many TTAG readers are saying in the comments, the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act(PLCAA) does NOT provide blanket immunity to firearms manufacturers. For example, if the gun has a defective trigger, you can still bring a products liability claim against the manufacturer if that particular manufacturing or design defect directly caused you injury. Or if a firearms manufacturer is engaged in price fixing or bid rigging, it is still subject to the normal civil or criminal liability for such conduct.
What
PLCAA does say is that you can’t sue firearms manufacturers for liability arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by third parties. But PLCAA does contain several exceptions to this — one of which is the following:
an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.
15 USC 7903(5)(A)(iii).
We’ll come back to that in a minute.
Second, the Connecticut Supreme Court did not find that Remington was liable, nor did they reflexively find for the plaintiffs. In fact, it affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims — a claim that Bushmaster’s advertising violated a Connecticut state law that prohibits false advertising.
With respect to that claim, the Court found that, taking the arguments presented in plaintiffs’ pleadings as true (which is the standard for a motion to dismiss), it was possible that plaintiffs could establish at trial that (1) Bushmaster violated a state law applicable to the marketing of the product, (2) that said violation proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries, and therefore (3) the above mentioned exception to the PLCAA immunity applies. It’s a very narrow decision that squeaked by the barest of margins (4-3).
Third, while the US Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case immediately is disappointing, that was hardly unexpected or unusual. The harsh reality is that the Supreme Court takes up very, very few cases — even when there are clear circuit splits or obvious disregard for settled law. It’s frustrating and maddening, but it’s been the reality of Supreme Court practice for generations.
More importantly, procedurally, the case is at the motion to dismiss stage — the case has not been tried on the merits, and the Supreme Court rarely if ever takes any cases that are at this stage.
Compounding matters, the Connecticut Supreme Court majority (likely to further reduce the possibility of immediate Supreme Court review) couched their decision in terms of state law — and the US Supreme Court almost never weighs in on such state issues.
)
