Tag Archives: “protection in lawful commerce of arms act”

Federal Judge Dismisses Class Action Against Slide Fire Solutions

A Federal Judge for the District of Nevada issued an order on September 17th dismissing a class action lawsuit against Slide Fire Solutions, makers of the notorious bump-fire stock. Slide Fire had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (which governs personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (which covers failures to state a claim for which relief can be granted).

Now I know you are all at the edge of your seats hoping for an in depth discussion about the Court’s analysis of personal jurisdiction, but this isn’t law school and I want you to come back to the blog for future articles. If you are interested, you can read the Court’s analysis of that issue here (Pages 5-13). However, the part that most of the readers will find fascinating is the Court’s analysis of Slide Fire’s claim under 12(b)(6) which points to the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA) for a defense.

PLCAA was enacted by Congress upon finding that manufacturers and sellers of firearms “are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products . . . that function as designed and intended.” Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(5)). Simply put, the statute requires Courts to immediately dismiss “qualified civil liability actions“. The term encompasses a few different things, but for the purposes of this discussion will mean civil actions “brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product . . . for damages . . . or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party…” Just as a quick aside, there are exemptions to this general rule, which you can find in the definition here.

Based on the definition above, the Court was left to wrestle with whether a bump-fire stock was a “qualified product“. In order to qualify, the bump-fire stock needed to be found to be a firearm or a component part. Of course, Congress did not define the term “component part” which meant that the Court had to give it meaning. Each party gave differing interpretations, Slide Fire arguing that it was a component part based on ATF’s guidebook and ATF’s determination letter, while the Plaintiff’s argued that they were accessories because “they are added after a consumer purchases a fully functional rifle, require post-purchase installation, and are advertised as a way to “enhance” or “overhaul” a rifle in Slide Fire’s promotional catalog”.

The Court ultimately sided with Slide Fire on its interpretation that a bump-fire stock was a “component part”. The Court found, and the parties did not dispute, that a stock was a component part of a rifle.

Thus, it follows that upon installation, the bump stock is a rifle’s operative stock and, therefore, becomes an integral part of a rifle.

As such, the Court determined that the bump-fire stocks were qualified products under PLCAA and therefor protected by the statute.

The Plaintiffs also argued that one of the exemptions was applicable because of “(1) Slide Fire’s alleged false entry on its application for a federal firearms license (“FFL”); and (2) Slide Fire’s misrepresentations to the ATF about bump stocks being intended for persons with limited mobility.” The Court declined to address the first allegation because it was not included in the complaint. In relation to the second allegation, the Court determined that “if a device’s marketability to those with disabilities was not a factor in the ATF’s finding, then it follows that Plaintiffs cannot show that Slide Fire’s misrepresentation proximately caused the injuries that are the subject of this case.” Simply put, the Court did not believe the Plaintiff’s presented enough evidence to invoke the exemption to PLCAA.

The Court gave the Plaintiffs twenty-one (21) days to amend their complaint, which means that this bumpy ride might not yet be over for Slide Fire.


screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm
Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law

The Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act and the Fate of Slide Fire in the Aftermath of Las Vegas

bush-plcaa

In October of 2005, the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA) took effect. Its purpose was simple – to shield manufacturers and sellers of qualified products from civil suits brought by victims and/or their families for the misuse of their product. Congress specifically stated in its findings that

Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

slidefire

Nine (9) days after the tragedy in Las Vegas, the first lawsuit has been filed against Slide Fire by three (3) individuals. Which begs the question, does the PLCAA shield Slide Fire and other manufacturers of accessories from such a lawsuit? This article will have 3 different sections: 1) what the PLCAA is and protects, 2) whether I believe Slide Fire is protected under the PLCAA, and 3) why it is important for manufacturers of firearm accessories to obtain an FFL.

What is the PLCAA?

The PLCAA precludes a qualified civil liability action from being brought in Federal or State court. While the wording of § 7902 is rather simple, it is the definitions are where the real analysis takes place.

The law defines a qualified civil liability action as

a civil action or proceeding…brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product…for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party…

In order to better understand what the law protects, we’ll need to examine the definitions of a few other terms.

The term “manufacturer” means

with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under [The Gun Control Act]

The term “seller” means

with respect to a qualified product—

(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of [The Gun Control Act]) who is engaged in the business as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such an importer under [The Gun Control Act];

(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of [The Gun Control Act]) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under [The Gun Control Act]; or

(C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of [The Gun Control Act]) in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail level.

Qualified product is another term that Congress defined. A qualified product

means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of [The Gun Control Act]), including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of [The Gun Control Act]), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of [The Gun Control Act]), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. (Emphasis added).

The law does provide six (6) specific exemptions to the general rule. They include

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of [The Gun Control Act], or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

     (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

     (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of [The Gun Control Act];

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of [The Gun Control Act]or [The National Firearms Act].
Simply put, in order to be protected under the PLCAA, the person manufacturing or selling the product has to 1) fall within the definition of “manufacturer”, “seller” or “trade association” (which I did not cover in this article), 2) manufacture or sell a qualified product, and 3) be sued by a person for a person’s criminal or unlawful misuse. If none of the six enumerated exemptions apply, the lawsuit must be dismissed.

Does the PLCAA Protect Slide Fire?

While there is plenty of caselaw regarding the PLCAA, I have not seen any where accessories have been implicated. Obviously, the crux of the argument with regards to the PLCAA applying to Slide Fire would be that their product is a component part.

As we saw above, in order for the PLCAA to apply, Slide Fire must either meet the definition of Manufacturer or Seller. Fortunately for Slide Fire, they are a Type 07 FFL, which puts them into the definition of a Manufacturer under the PLCAA.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.21.50 AM

The Slide Fire stocks are qualified products (being that they are “a component part of a firearm”). So it would naturally follow that the PLCAA would apply.

 

Why is it Important Manufacturers of Firearm Accessories Obtain an FFL?

If you haven’t guessed by now, we need to return to the definitions. The protection of the PLCAA is extended to manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are licensed under the Gun Control Act (also persons engaged in the business of selling ammunition at the wholesale or retail level). By obtaining an FFL, a company can place itself under the umbrella of the PLCAA, where they may otherwise not have the protections of the Act.

Had Slide Fire not been a licensed manufacturer (or dealer or importer) it is likely that they would be an open target to be sued without the PLCAA coming into play.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized