PITTSBURGH - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court won't let the parents of a teenager shot and killed accidentally to sue the gun's maker and seller.
The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars most injury lawsuits and applies to the case of J.R. Gustafson, who was 13 years old when he was shot in March 2016 at a home in Westmoreland County.
Gustafson's friend thought the gun, made by Springfield Armory and sold at Saloom Department Store, was unloaded, but there was a bullet in the chamber. A Westmoreland County judge dismissed the subsequent lawsuit against Springfield and Saloom, but the Superior Court revived it.
On April 9, the state Supreme Court dismissed the case in an opinion written by Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy. The court was asked to decide if the PLCAA violates the Tenth Amendment by requiring state judges to toss lawsuits that adequately allege violation of state laws, like design defect.
"Assuming Plaintiffs and the Federalism Scholars are correct that the federal government does not have authority to dictate to states which branch of their government shall enact certain laws, we agree with the United States that that principle is not applicable to the PLCAA," Mundy wrote.
"The reason... is straightforward: nothing in the PLCAA dictates to the states which branch of government they can use to enact any laws. The Act merely bars certain civil actions from being brought."
Courts around the country have been tasked with whether to pin blame on firearms makers for years. Notably, in 2021 the Nevada Supreme Court blocked wrongful death cases over the 2017 mass shooting carried out by Stephen Paddock from the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas.
Paddock killed 60 people at the Route 91 Harvest music festival when he fired more than 1,000 shots into the crowd. The gun didn't comply with with state and federal prohibitions on machine guns, the plaintiffs argued as they attempted to pierce the PLCAA.
“If civil liability is to be imposed against firearm manufacturers and distributors in the position of the gun companies in this case, that decision is for the Legislature, not this court," Justice Kristina Pickering wrote in that opinion.
The Pennsylvania plaintiffs said the PLCAA is unconstitutional, while a group of 18 states filed an amicus brief that argued otherwise. Pennsylvania's amicus brief took no position on the issue.
Congress passed the PLCAA, in part, to protect interstate commerce. Defendants listed other rulings in which courts found the PLCAA does not exceed Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
"Of particular significance, Congress found that lawsuits had been filed against firearms companies operating in interstate and international 'for harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals,' and that firearms companies engaged in interstate and international commerce should not be held liable for such harm," Mundy wrote.
The plaintiffs also argued the PLCAA violates the 10th Amendment and the anticommandeering doctrine because the federal government has taken away states' rights to regulate themselves.
Recent examples include a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck a federal law prohibiting states from passing sports gambling laws.
"To the extent the PLCAA requires state judges to dismiss civil actions that could otherwise proceed under state law, that requirement does not violate the anticommandeering doctrine but is rather a product of the Supremacy Clause," Mundy wrote.
"(T)he PLCAA does not bar states from enacting any law and instead merely preempts state law in relation to qualified civil liability actions."