ALBANY, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) – Gun manufacturers have failed to show a New York law exposing them to liability for shootings is unconstitutional, state Attorney General Letitia James’ office is arguing.
The AG’s office on Feb. 18 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the law in Albany federal court. The National Shooting Sports Foundation and 14 gun-makers filed suit Dec. 16 over SB7196, which allows lawyers to hold them liable for a “public nuisance.”
The law, finalized in July, seeks to avoid liability protections included in the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that have helped firearms companies defend themselves from lawsuits like those brought over the deadliest mass shooting in the country’s history, the plaintiffs say.
But they filed their complaint months after the law went into effect “without coming close to showing that the law is unconstitutional in all of its possible applications,” the motion to dismiss says.
“PLCAA does not prohibit actions against manufacturers or sellers of firearms that knowingly violate a state statute ‘applicable to the sale or marketing of the product’ – i.e. firearms,” it adds.
“PLCAA contains a clear exception, generally called the ‘predicate exception,’ that permits actions based upon violations of state regulations applicable to the sale, marketing and distribution of firearms and liability for violations of such laws.”
The law passed in July on the idea that the firearms industry has failed to implement reasonable safety measures. It allows for lawsuits against companies responsible for the “illegal or unreasonable sale, manufacture, distribution, importing or marketing of firearms…”
The plaintiffs say it violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by the PLCAA, it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by favoring New York gun-makers because it regulates the gun industry outside the state and it violates the Due Process Clause because it has vague language.
"By its terms, the Act therefore intentionally and purposefully regulates interstate commerce occurring wholly outside of New York, and excepts solely instrastate commerce of products manufactured and sold entirely within New York's borders," the suit says.
The motion to dismiss says all gun-makers are treated evenly under the law, whether they are headquartered in New York or elsewhere.
“A law that regulates purely extraterritorial commerce or one that purposely discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce will survive only if it is ‘demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism,’” the motion says, citing a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
“But a law such as the one at bar that only incidentally burdens interstate commerce is subject to (a) more permissible balancing test… and will only be struck down if the burden imposed on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local gains asserted by the government.”