ILNews

Court rules on gun manufacturer suit

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's decision to deny handgun manufacturers' motion to dismiss a public nuisance suit brought by the city of Gary. The court determined Indiana's public nuisance statute is applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms for purposes of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

At issue in Smith & Wesson Corp. et al. & United States of America v. City of Gary, Indiana by its mayor, Rudy Clay, 45A05-0612-CV-754, was whether the PLCAA, 15 U.S.C. 7901-7903, barred Gary's nuisance claims against the manufacturers.

Gary had filed a suit against handgun manufacturers, one wholesaler, and retailers alleging the defendants knowingly sold guns to illegal buyers through intermediaries in "straw purchases," which is selling a gun knowing that the buyer will give the gun to someone who is not legally allowed to purchase one.

Gary first brought the suit in September 1999, and the Indiana Supreme Court held the city could proceed on its negligence and negligent design claims and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the city's public nuisance charge against the manufacturers, determining manufacturers should be included in the claim.

In 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which was created to protect handgun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers from lawsuits because of handgun misuse or criminal activity. PLCAA included a "predicate exception," that said a "qualified civil liability action" would not include "any action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal Statue applicable to the sale or marketing of the product ... ." 15 U.S.C. 7903(5)(A)(iii).

The manufacturers moved to dismiss the city's complaint, citing PLCAA. The trial court denied the motion because it found PLCAA to be unconstitutional and implied the act was applicable to the city's claims. The manufacturers appealed, arguing the predicate exception doesn't apply to the city's public nuisance claim.

The Court of Appeals determined Indiana's public nuisance statute, as applied by the Indiana Supreme Court to the alleged conduct of the manufacturers, is applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms for purposes of the PLCAA. Judge John Sharpnack wrote in the opinion the word "applicable" is unambiguous in the predicate exception and on the face of the language, Indiana's public nuisance statute appears applicable.

PLCAA was designed to protect manufacturers engaged in lawful sales of handguns, but the city alleges the manufactures were knowingly participating in unlawful sales of handguns to illegal buyers, so the predicate exception would not apply, wrote Judge Sharpnack.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT