A federal judge in San Diego has barred the state’s attorney general from enforcing a new California law that allows the filing of civil lawsuits against firearms manufacturers that make and market “abnormally dangerous” weapons.
Judge Andrew Schopler of the Southern District of California handed down the decision on Feb. 21, granting the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). The trade association argued that the law, the California Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (Assembly Bill 1594), violates the First and Second Amendments, as well as the commerce clause and other constitutional provisions.
Schopler’s opinion focuses on how the law could potentially impact commercial firearms transactions that occur outside of California. In his decision, the judge suggested that a legal firearms transaction that takes place in neighboring Arizona, involving a Tennessee-based manufacturer, could result in the theft of the weapon and its illegal use in a California shooting. In turn, transactions in other states could become the target of the law under its “abnormally dangerous” firearm provision, Schopler said.
“Because the ‘abnormally dangerous’ firearm rule reaches beyond California’s borders and directly regulates out-of-state commercial transactions, it likely runs afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause,” he said in the decision.
Members of the firearms industry that do no business in California could be held liable for sales that involve no California destinations or parties, according to the opinion. Under the provisions of the new law, the state’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, can sue firearms companies for violations, as can California cities, counties and private individuals.
The state Attorney General’s Office did not respond to a request for comment, but the NSSF hailed the court decision as a victory against “frivolous lawsuits” against arms makers.
“We feel very good about this decision,” Mark Oliva, the NSSF’s spokesman, told the Southern California Record. “... The California law exceeded their authority to influence the law in other states.”
The NSSF also argues that the state law flies in the face of a 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars people from filing civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors or importers of arms or ammunition when individuals misuse the products.
Oliva equated the filing of lawsuits against gunmakers when people use their products illegally to suing the Anheuser Busch brewing company for harm caused by a drunken driver.
Other NSSF officials said the California law posed a real financial threat to firearms manufacturers.
“We are thankful the court enjoined the state from suing members of the firearm industry under this unconstitutional law that attempts to use the real threat of liability on commerce beyond California’s borders and impose its policy choices on its sister states,” NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane said in a prepared statement.
The NSSF is now weighing whether to file an amended complaint in the case to shed more light on how the law poses a “crushing liability” threat and the “ongoing harm to members of our industry,” Keane said.
Schopler’s opinion dismissed the NSSF’s claims concerning the law’s unfair-business-practices provisions but allowed the foundation to refile and amend those arguments.