A Bill has been introduced in the West Virginia House of Delegates that seeks to close a loophole in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that was exploited by Sandy Hook families to destroy Remington and is now being used by Uvalde families to threaten Daniel Defense with a similar fate. Efforts like this one are unfortunately a necessary byproduct of blatant leftist subversion of Constitutional liberties and a federal government that refuses to defend those rights, a duty prioritized by the oath of office sworn by all elected officials and law enforcement personnel.
The West Virginia Firearms Liability Clarification Act is sponsored by Republican House Delegates Elias Coop-Gonzalez, Chuck Horst, Rick Hillenbrand, Daniel Linville, Chris Phillips, Dave Foggin, Thomas Clark, Chris Anders, and Pat McGeehan.
“The PLCAA provides essential protections to firearms manufacturers and sellers against certain lawsuits arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products… The predicate exception within the PLCAA allows for certain lawsuits to proceed if the defendant knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, and such violation was a proximate cause of the harm,” the bill reads.
Legislators aim to close this loophole and address the deceptive use of “negligent marketing” claims, which plaintiffs deploy to manipulate the current wording of the PLCAA into cannibalizing itself.
“Recent litigation has demonstrated attempts to circumvent the PLCAA’s protections through broad interpretations of the predicate exception… A broad interpretation of the predicate exception could undermine the PLCAA’s purpose, effectively ‘swallowing the rule’ by allowing general statutes to circumvent the article’s protections,” the bill continues.
Such disingenuous tactics, clearly deployed by the leftist anti-Second Amendment groups to abuse the legal process and cause intentionally misplaced and irreparable punitive damage, are a signature move that Democrats are proud of. One rabidly anti-American house of ill repute known as Everytown for Gun Safety even publishes a guide on how to use the system to circumvent the law, outlining the importance of this bill as elements of the judicial branch have demonstrated either nefarious or emotionally incompetent intent from the bench, including to the extent that they allow such litigation to proceed.
“This legislation aims to prevent judicial activism or jury verdicts based upon emotion or political leanings, ensuring that manufacturers are not unfairly punished because their products were illegally used by criminals,” according to the West Virginia Firearms Liability Clarification Act.
The bill would make it unlawful to bring a “negligent marketing” claim against firearms and ammunition manufacturers and dealers unless all of a defined set of conditions are met. Those conditions include direct marketing to prohibited individuals, encouraging or facilitating unlawful use, and “a direct and substantial causal link between the marketing practice and the harm suffered by the plaintiff.” Additionally, the practice would need to be in violation of federal and state statutes that explicitly regulate firearms and ammunition marketing and sales in a manner clearly constituting “willful and knowing” conduct.
In addition, the bill lays out the criteria necessary for a claim to proceed in court, limiting broad interpretations of the predicate exception under the PLCAA to specific statutes explicitly regulating firearms or ammunition. The claim must also be clear as to requirements that a manufacturer or seller failed to meet, and that failure must have directly caused the harm in question. These conditions are bookended with a reminder of how we got here in the first place.
“General state consumer protection laws or public nuisance laws shall not be considered as statutes ‘applicable to the sale or marketing’ of firearms or ammunition for the purposes of the predicate exception… The broad interpretation of the predicate exception, which could ‘swallow the rule’ by allowing general statutes to circumvent the PLCAA, is explicitly rejected.”
Of course, a good bill should have some teeth, and this measure addresses that by making any person who files a “negligent marketing” suit in violation of these limitations subject to a dismissal of their claims and payment of the defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred. It also provides for a manufacturer or seller to bring civil action for damages and injunctive relief regarding any claim found in violation of the bill.
While it is unfortunate that we need immense clarification to keep leftist lawbreakers in line, it is encouraging to see that legislators are taking up the mantle to protect the rights of their constituents in the face of abject corruption. I encourage residents of West Virginia to contact their representatives and have meaningful discussions about support for this bill. For those in other parts of the country, send the bill to your local representative and put them in a position to demonstrate loyalty to their oath of office and the United States Constitution.
