On March 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous decisionaffirming a lower court decision that claims brought against RLF’s clients are barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-03 (“PLCAA”), and that the PLCAA is constitutional.

Plaintiffs’ teenage son was tragically shot and killed with a pistol when a friend (the “shooter”) pointed it at him and intentionally pulled the trigger, mistakenly believing that he had unloaded the pistol by removing its magazine.  Plaintiffs sued the manufacturer and the retail dealer of the pistol claiming that it was defectively designed.  The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case pursuant to the PLCAA, which bars civil lawsuits against industry members when their products are criminally or unlawfully misused.  On appeal, a three judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that the PLCAA prohibited plaintiffs’ claims, but reversed the trial court’s decision, becoming the first appellate court in the nation to declare the PLCAA to be unconstitutional.  The Superior Court granted defendants’ petition for a full court (en banc) review and vacated the panel’s decision.  However, it then issued a confusing split decision again reversing the trial court’s decision.  That Superior Court issued five different opinions.  Although a majority of the judges (7 of 9) concluded that the PLCAA barred plaintiffs’ claims, and a majority (5 of 9) concluded that the PLCAA is constitutional, since five judges had voted to reverse, albeit on different grounds, the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then agreed to take the case.

Yesterday, in a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision by Justice Mundy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously reversed the en banc Superior Court and reinstated the trial judge’s decision dismissing the case.  The court held that plaintiffs’ claims constitute a qualified civil liability action for purposes of the PLCAA because their damages were caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of the pistol.  They explained that because the shooter was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for having committed involuntary manslaughter based on the shooting, plaintiffs were seeking damages from firearms companies resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the pistol.  The decision also held that the product defect exception to the PLCAA does not apply because the shooter intentionally pulled the pistol’s trigger, which was a volitional act constituting a criminal offense, and it did not matter that the shooter did not intend to injure or kill the plaintiffs’ son. 

After determining the PLCAA would prohibit plaintiffs’ case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court then held that the PLCAA was a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power. Congress had the power to enact the PLCAA because it applies only to firearms that have moved in interstate commerce and manufacturers and sellers who are engaged in interstate commerce.  It further rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the PLCAA violates the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism because it does not force the states to enact laws.  The court noted that the PLCAA simply prohibits certain types of claims against a specific class of defendants, includes exceptions to the immunity, and does not impose any restrictions on the manner in which states enact their laws.

While it took time to achieve this precedential result, RLF’s efforts to achieve a full dismissal at the pleading stage avoided putting our clients through an arduous discovery process.

If you have any questions about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, or the defense of cases against the firearms industry pursuant to the PLCAA, please contact John Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.