The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is, in theory, supposed to shield the firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits that, frankly, all stem from what third parties do with the items they obtain, not anything the gun companies themselves actually do.
However, the practice, there are ways that anti-gunners have found to get around it, and we've just discovered a new one.
As noted in the headline, a judge has made Brady delighted by ruling that magazines don't constitute "arms" under the PLCAA.
In its refusal to dismiss the case, the court found that the high-capacity magazine was not a component part of a firearm and thus, the case does not fall under the protection of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms ACT (PLCAA), which has been leveraged by the gun industry to dismiss other cases that would have held them accountable. The court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the lawsuit is a major victory in Brady’s ongoing efforts to hold the gun industry accountable for its role in driving America’s gun violence epidemic and the latest instance in which Brady Legal has successfully defeated an asserted PLCAA defense.
The complaint, filed in 2023, alleges, in part, that American Tactical, Inc., marketed, distributed, and sold the high-capacity magazine used by the gunman in the mass shooting. Despite knowing that mass killers are attracted to high-capacity magazines to carry out mass shootings, American Tactical, Inc., failed to implement any protocols or safeguards to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring the product. At 60 rounds, the gunman’s magazine had about six times the killing capacity of standard magazines and enabled continuous firing without the need to pause to reload. The complaint alleges that anyone — “regardless of age, criminal history, or mental health history” — can buy high-capacity magazines like the one used by the FedEx gunman directly from American Tactical’s website. American Tactical, Inc. marketed the lethal product with videos featuring extreme violence, stylized like video games and action movies.
Now, I have a massive issue with the ruling, because magazines are an essential component for semi-automatic firearms, which should make them arms. However, as I'm not a lawyer, much less a judge, it's possible that the law in question doesn't actually allow for that.
So this is a setback.
However, that doesn't mean anything other than American Tactical will likely have to battle this out in court, only to win that way.
After all, while American Tactical may have had marketing that makes Brady feel queasy, there's nothing illegal about it. More than that, magazines aren't controlled items, so by selling them, they have no control over who does what with what. There's no background check even available to them if they wanted to conduct one, though even trying it would be business suicide.
At some point, the courts have to step up and start telling these anti-gun groups that the only person responsible for this is the person who pulled the trigger. Personal responsibility is a thing, and just like every gang-banging thug is responsible for his own actions rather than buzzwords like "systemic racism" or "economic disadvantage," mass killers are responsible for their own mass killings and no one else.
It might be different if they can prove actual wrongdoing, but an ad that, in hindsight, looks problematic, ain't it.
Freedom of speech is still a thing, and while there are limits on that, a video game-inspired ad isn't exactly incitement, no matter how the wilting flowers at Brady view the matter.
If they get away with this, though, it'll just keep the floodgates of lawsuits coming; the very sort of thing the PLCAA was created to stop.
