May 21, 2025 – A lone gunman shoots up a festival crowd, killing dozens.^[1] A child finds a gun, thinks it’s empty, and then shoots a friend.^[2]A city government alleges that violence caused by illegal guns violates public nuisance statutes.^[3]

All these events created harm, but as is often true in litigation, the first step in obtaining recovery requires finding the responsible party.

Under a federal law passed in 2005, none of the above can be blamed on a gun manufacturer, distributor, or seller. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 15 U.S.C. sections 7901-7903, limits when plaintiffs may succeed with such a lawsuit.

Exceptions to the PLCAA outline the regulations governing the federally licensed gun trade. Compliance with those laws shields businesses from liability caused by others’ criminal acts – while holding them accountable when such businesses fail to comply.

After nearly 20 years, long after courts held the law constitutional in City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d. Cir. 2008) and Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009), plaintiffs continue to face the PLCAA.

Limited Liability with Exceptions

Congress enacted the PLCAA to stave off lawsuits – such as the Beretta and Ileto lawsuits then proceeding in the courts – that would hold gun dealers, distributors, and manufacturers accountable for the illegal acts of other people under various theories of liability.

Congress made its concerns clear by extensive findings and purposes specified in 15 U.S.C. section 7901.

The plaintiffs have endured grievous losses. Their plight draws sympathy from the public – and a high-value verdict could destroy companies engaged in legitimate business that complied with regulations and did not know the transaction armed a criminal.

The ultimate justification for federal protection serves to support the rights in the Second Amendment “to keep and bear Arms.”

The PLCAA’s proscription boils down to a simple, declarative sentence in 15 U.S.C. section 7902(a): “A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”

The definitions, especially the six exceptions to “a qualified civil liability action” in 15 U.S.C. section 7903(5)(A), require more explanation.

All six of the exceptions describe when a member of the gun trade – manufacturer, distributor, or seller – breaks a law, regulation, or contract. Liability exists as well for negligent entrustment, negligence per se, and product liability.

The exceptions for knowingly violating state or federal laws, whether a state law is comparable to the federal criminal violation, or whether the statute applies to the gun trade, provide room to argue.

Four Recent Cases

Four cases, one completed and three in progress, show the PLCAA in operation – and still raising questions.

In Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.,^[4] decided this year by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a 14-year-old killed a 13-year-old friend by pointing a gun and pulling the trigger. Although the semi-automatic pistol didn’t have a clip, the child didn’t check the chamber for a bullet. The child was found delinquent in juvenile court of involuntary manslaughter.

Plaintiffs argued design defect, negligent design, and negligent warning. The businesses defended by arguing that the juvenile disposition indicated a criminal act of another and the PLCAA shielded them from this liability.

The court concluded the act was of sufficiently criminal nature for the PLCAA to apply.

In the ongoing, unresolved litigation of State of Minnesota v. Fleet Farm LLC^[5] in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the Minnesota attorney general is suing Fleet Farm on allegations that the company “allegedly [sold] firearms to individuals that Fleet Farm knew or should have known were straw purchasers of weapons.”

Minnesota claims to have evidence of at least two buyers engaged in characteristic “straw” transactions when the buyers bought multiple guns of the same caliber in short periods of time, appearing to be in communication with other parties. Purchases from such sales typically go to people who couldn’t legally buy guns.

In addition, Minnesota alleges that guns traced to the sales were “used in a large-scale shootout in a St. Paul bar” and a public shooting in Minneapolis.

The district court held the alleged violations of negligence, public nuisance, and aiding-and-abetting to be outside PLCAA protection – absent further discovery and trial – because the claims are “plausibly alleged.”

The district court subsequently granted Minnesota leave to amend its complaint to add violations of the Minnesota Gun Control Act and public nuisance statute, and for civil penalties, costs, and fees.^[6]

The case remains in pretrial practice with no determination of liability.

In New York v. Arm or Ally, LLC,^[7] the State of New York raised claims under state statutes for the sale of unserialized and unregistered gun frames and receivers – the body of the gun or rifle. The companies did not provide any background checks on buyers.

These key parts allow for creating untraceable guns, known as “ghost guns.”

New York argues defendants violated state statutes prohibiting businesses from endangering the public, fraudulent acts, required reasonable controls to prevent the harm, and misrepresentations that the gun kits are legal.

On a motion to dismiss, the district court concluded most claims fell outside PLCAA protection at the pretrial stage as plausible violations.

A subsequent district court decision, however, accepted a question on interlocutory appeal about whether these products are firearms.^[8] Litigation is proceeding.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4 in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos,^[9] which may have drawn recent attention to the PLCAA.

The Mexican government alleges that the defendant gun distributor and seven gun manufacturers have conducted sales and distribution in a manner that knowingly violates federal and state laws.

Manufacturer choice to produce military-grade products, the government argues, appeals to criminal cartels. The results fuel harm to Mexican citizens from cartel violence.

The gun manufacturers and distributors defend themselves by saying their businesses comply with federal and state laws and seek PLCAA protection. The district court granted the protection, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide.

Regulation Instead of Litigation?

Although it’s easy to find cases in which PLCAA shielded businesses, commentary in recent years questions whether courts have used the law consistently or correctly.

A Florida Law Review article by professors Hillel Y. Levin and Timothy D. Lytton^[10] argues that the PLCAA uses traditional tort reform methodology that gives public policy decisions to legislatures, not juries.

“Properly understood,” Levin and Lytton wrote, “PLCAA permits lawsuits against the gun industry so long as they are based on statutory causes of action rather than common law. While broadly preempting state common law claims, PLCAA affords state legislatures autonomy in deciding how to regulate the gun industry within their borders.”

As the court held in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James, 604 F. Supp. 3d 48, 61 (N.D. N.Y. 2022), “‘Congress clearly intended to allow state statutes which regulate the firearms industry,’ and, thus, PLCAA’s predicate exception explicitly allows states to accomplish through legislation what they may not accomplish through common law litigation,” Levin and Lytton wrote.

Legislatures in New York, California, New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington have enacted statutes specific to the firearms industry, Levin and Lytton wrote.

The Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (FIRA) enacted in Illinois in 2023, offers a nearby example that establishes by statute conduct for firearms proprietors. The law faces legal challenges.

While the PLCAA protects businesses through regulatory compliance, the law may allow public means of adding locally approved, industry-specific regulations in a more controlled manner than litigation.

Endnotes

[1] Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP, 410 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Nev. 2019).

[2] Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., No. 7 WAP 2023, 2025 WL 955641 (Pa. March 31, 2025).

[3] City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008); see Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir., 2009) (holding that survivor and victims claims under codified California tort law could not proceed because of PLCAA).

[4] Gustafson, 2025 WL 955641.

[5] 679 F. Supp. 3d 825 (D. Minn. 2023) (holding that PLCAA does not preempt state law claims raised by Attorney General); No. 22-2694 (JRT/JFD), 2024 WL 22102 (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2024) (denying certification for interlocutory appeal of questions including whether PLCAA preempts state law claims).

[6] No. 22-cv-2694 (JRT/JFD), 2024 WL 946631 (D. Minn. Mar. 5, 2024), aff’d, No. 22-2694 (JRT/JFD), 2024 WL 2412027 (D. Minn., May 23, 2024).

[7] New York v. Arm or Ally, LLC, 718 F. Supp. 3d 310 (S.D. N.Y. 2024) (granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss); see also New York v. Arm or Ally, LLC, 644 F. Supp. 3d 70 (S.D. N.Y. 2022) (denying state motion to remand from federal court to state court because of Substantial Federal Question Doctrine).

[8] New York v. Arm or Ally, LLC, No. 22-CV-6124 (JMF), 2024 WL 2270351 (S.D. N.Y. May 20, 2024).

[9] The case is on appeal from 91 F.4th 511 (1st Cir. 2024), reversing 633 F. Supp. 3d 425 (D. Mass. 2022).

[10] Hillel Y. Levin & Timothy D. Lytton, The Contours of Gun Industry Immunity: Separation of Powers, Federalism, and the Second Amendment, 75 Fla. L. Rev. 833 (2023).