The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan has upheld a New York law holding gun manufacturers potentially liable for shootings committed with their firearms, according to the Associated Press.
The 2021 New York law, states that members of the gun industry can be held civilly liable if their conduct, whether unlawful or unreasonable, knowingly or recklessly creates, maintains, or contributes to a condition in New York that endangers public health or safety through the sale, manufacturing, importing, or marketing of firearms or related products.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, representing gun manufacturers, challenged the New York law, arguing it was preempted by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and was unconstitutionally vague. The PLCAA protects firearm manufacturers from civil liability if their products are used in an illegal shooting. The only time a manufacturer can be held liable is if they knowingly violate a state or federal law.
They further argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clearly define what conduct would expose gun manufacturers and sellers to liability. Terms like reckless and "reasonable controls" were challenged as not providing enough clarity for what specific actions by manufacturers could make them liable to civil suits.
The three-judge panel disagreed.
Laws like the one upheld are not actually written to give the victims of gun violence a way to hold people accountable. They are typically used to bankrupt firearm manufacturers, who are unable to keep up with the significant costs of the lawsuits. Typically, those pursuing the suit won't have to pay their lawyers unless they win the suit; the gun manufacturers will have to pay their defense lawyers regardless of whether they win or lose. Laws like those upheld by the 2nd U.S. Circuit are meant to make it easier to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
Judge Dennis Jacobs, while concurring with the ruling, did have some reservations. He wrote that the NY law is “nothing short of an attempt to end-run” the PLCAA. Judge Jacobs further said that “There is some legitimate reach to the law, which suffices for us to affirm the dismissal of this facial challenge. Just how limited that reach is must await future cases.”