Justice Thomas’ concurrence highlights a large loophole within the Safety of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The regulation lets plaintiffs sue gun firms in the event that they “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute” tied to firearm gross sales or advertising, however the courtroom is permitting lawsuits to proceed with out first proving the violation occurred. This undermines the PLCAA’s core objective: shielding firearms firms from chapter attributable to expensive, meritless lawsuits. Although these circumstances will on the deserves fail finally, gun management advocates exploit this hole to burden producers and sellers with crippling authorized bills, aiming to bankrupt them by relentless litigation. The lawsuits then “succeed” by driving the businesses into chapter 11.
.
In future circumstances, courts ought to extra totally study the that means of “violation” underneath the PLCAA. It appears to me that the PLCAA a minimum of arguably requires not solely a believable allegation {that a} defendant has dedicated a predicate violation, but in addition an earlier discovering of guilt or legal responsibility in an adjudication concerning the “violation.” Permitting plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would pressure many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their felony guilt in a civil continuing, with out the total panoply of protections that we in any other case afford to felony defendants. And, these defendants may even embody ones who have been cleared in an earlier continuing, resembling by a noncharging resolution or a not-guilty or not-liable verdict. Such collateral adjudication could be at finest extremely uncommon, and would seemingly elevate critical constitutional questions that may counsel in favor of a narrower interpretation.
Justice Thomas’ concurrence, Smith & Wesson Manufacturers v Estados Unidos Mexicanos, June 5, 2025.
