Remington Arms v. Soto

By David B. Kopel, Joseph G.S. Greenlee, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus David B. Kopel, Joseph G.S. Greenlee, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two-thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun-control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never-ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation-induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed the PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

Despite PLCAA’s protections, in 2014 victims of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and their family members attempted to hold Remington, a gun manufacturer, responsible for the crimes of the killer because the rifle he used was made by …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute