XII. Special Topic: Legislative History

According to PLCAA’s text, one of the statute’s purposes is to “prohibit causes of action” against the gun industry “for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.”⁴⁴⁷See 15 U.S.C.A. § 7901(b)(1) (West). While gun industry defendants often cherry pick similar language from PLCAA’s legislative history to suggest that the statute should be read expansively, the reality is far more nuanced. PLCAA’s legislative history, while complex, makes plain that Congress was particularly focused on certain lawsuits that it deemed frivolous because—at least according to the legislation’s sponsors—they allegedly were not tied to specific allegations of wrongdoing by a specific member of the gun industry. This special topic explores aspects of PLCAA’s legislative history that you can cite to rebut distortions that you may encounter during litigation about Congress’s intent.

Practice Pointer

There are a couple of important things to bear in mind before exploring legislative history or using it in a brief. First, where the text of PLCAA is unambiguous on a particular issue in dispute, there is no need “to resort to legislative history.”¹U.S. v. Gonzalez, 521 U.S. 1, 6 (1997). In addition, courts have recognized that PLCAA’s preamble does not override the statute’s operative text.²See, e.g., Delana v. CED Sales, Inc., 486 S.W.3d 316, 322 (Mo. 2016). However, where the language of PLCAA contains ambiguities relevant to a dispute, a court may “look beyond the text for other indicia of congressional intent”—including to its legislative history.³United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F.3d 1234, 1237 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

The Gun Industry was Facing Increased Accountability in the Courts

PLCAA was, first and foremost, a reactive piece of legislation.⁴⁴⁸See 15 U.S.C.A. § 7901(a)(3) (West) (“Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.”). Cosponsors and supporters of PLCAA pointed to specific lawsuits they deemed “predatory” as inspiration for the legislation. They expressed concerns that these (in their words) “frivolous” lawsuits had the potential to bankrupt the gun industry.⁴⁴⁹151 Cong. Rec. E2164-02 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 2005) (statement of Rep. John Sullivan) (“By passing this similar Senate bill, we will prevent state courts from bankrupting the national firearms industry and undermining all citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms.”); 151 Cong. Rec. H8990 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 2005) (statement of Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner). Despite this supposed concern, at the time of PLCAA’s enactment there was no evidence of any gun company filing for bankruptcy in response to then-pending litigation.⁴⁵⁰See 151 Cong. Rec. S9380 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Ted Kennedy) (contesting the allegation that the gun industry was at risk of bankruptcy). It is also worth noting that the gun industry continues to claim that “sweeping liability [ ] will force [gun companies] to shutter their businesses,” but as the Third Circuit recently held, “[this] bold assertion is backed by no evidence.” Nat’l Shooting Sports Found. v. Attorney Gen. of New Jersey, 80 F.4th 215, 220 (3d Cir. 2023). Supporters also emphasized the role that guns played in the U.S. economy.⁴⁵¹See 151 Cong. Rec. H8882 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 2005) (statement of Rep. Melissa Hart) (“In addition, the gun industry plays a large role in my State of Pennsylvania in our economy. Pennsylvania is home to 277 gun manufacturers, and the impact of sportsmen-related activity to our economy brings more than $900 million to our State. It also brings generations of family tradition. That is also good for our economy.”) And PLCAA’s sponsors expressed fears that these lawsuits were stretching “civil liability” within tort law “in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States.”⁴⁵²15 U.S.C.A. § 7901(a)(8) (“The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law.”).

PLCAA’s opponents argued the opposite: that the proposed new law was a fundamental change of tort law that overhauled “years of legal negligence standards.”⁴⁵³51 Cong. Rec. H9009 (daily ed. Oct. 20, 2005). One opponent, citing a letter from law professors, asserted that “the bill would in fact represent a dramatic narrowing of traditional tort principles by providing one industry with a literally unprecedented immunity from liability for the foreseeable consequences of negligent conduct.”⁴⁵⁴151 Cong. Rec. H9004 (daily ed. Oct. 20, 2005) (statement of Rep. Chris Van Hollen). The balance between federal and state authority was also implicated, in opponents’ view, as PLCAA sought “to impose a Federal tort regime that would significantly restrict the ability of State courts to hear and decide cases involving grossly negligent or reckless conduct by gun dealers and manufacturers, even where existing State law would permit such cases.”⁴⁵⁵151 Cong. Rec. S9391 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Carl Levin).

PLCAA Was Intended to Preempt a Narrow Category of Lawsuits

Opponents of PLCAA contended that lawsuits cited by the bill’s supporters were not frivolous and served as incentives for gun companies to act responsibly.⁴⁵⁶151 Cong. Rec. S9388 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Jack Reed) (“If this legislation passes, what incentive will there be for a gun dealer or gun manufacturer to act reasonably?”); 151 Cong. Rec. S9390 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Barbara Boxer) (“So court cases like Dix v. Beretta are the only way we can ensure gunmakers do the right thing.”). These statements reflected a concern about the narrowness of PLCAA’s exceptions—and in particular about the future of suits against gun dealers for straw purchases⁴⁵⁷See 151 Cong. Rec. S9387 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Jack Reed) (explaining that sellers are totally immunized from liability over straw purchases). and suits where “someone’s own reckless or gross misconduct is a cause, a proximate cause, or contributes to damages which others have.”⁴⁵⁸151 Cong. Rec. S9109 (daily ed. Jul. 27, 2005) (statement of Sen. Carl Levin).

In response, supporters of PLCAA emphasized that the law was not an immunity bill, and the important suits opponents hypothesized would be able to proceed through PLCAA’s exceptions. Supporters repeatedly stated that the law “allows lawsuits to proceed against the bad actors” and only provided immunity against manufacturers who “have not done anything wrong, even though their products may be used in a criminal nature.”⁴⁵⁹151 Cong. Rec. H8993 (daily ed. Oct. 20, 2005) (statement of Rep. Jim Sesenbrenner) (explaining that “[i]t is important to stress at the outset what this legislation does not do” and then discussing the law’s exceptions at length); see also 151 Cong. Rec. S9387 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Kay Hutchison) (“What we are trying to do is stop gun manufacturers from having to answer lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit for the criminal misuse of that product.”). As a result, they contended, the legislation was not intended to “bar legitimate lawsuits” or “lawsuits if a gun malfunctions.”⁴⁶⁰151 Cong. Rec. S9387 (daily ed. Jul. 29, 2005) (statement of Sen. Kay Hutchison); 151 Cong. Rec. S9226 (daily ed. Jul. 28, 2005) (statement of Sen. Lindsey Graham) (“This bill does not allow someone to sell a gun without following the procedures that we have set out to sell a gun. It doesn’t allow someone to make a gun that is unsafe.”). That is, “if there really [was] a problem, that is to say, the conduct [of a manufacturer] is so bad that it is a violation of law, no lawsuit is precluded under [the] bill in any way.”⁴⁶¹151 Cong. Rec. S9226 (daily ed. Jul. 28, 2005) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). Supporters viewed PLCAA as only stopping “one extreme narrow category of lawsuits, lawsuits that attempt to force the gun industry to pay for the crimes of third parties over whom they have no control. . . . This bill does not protect any member of the gun industry from lawsuits for harm resulting from any illegal actions they have committed.”⁴⁶²151 Cong. Rec. S9088 (daily ed. Jul. 27, 2005) (statement of Sen. Larry Craig). In other words, it was “not a gun industry immunity bill.”⁴⁶³Id.

---

© 2024 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund