The industry would be forced to defend itself against legal action concerning lawful commerce that occurred completely outside of the state.
Clearly it was simply another attempt by anti-gun extremists to cripple Second Amendment-related businesses.
But U.S. District Judge Andrew Schopler in the Southern District of California saw through the state’s attempt to circumvent the Constitution and the Supreme Court. He enjoined enforcement of the so-called “Firearm Industry Responsibility Act” in a move that should send a clear signal to overzealous lawmakers.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry trade organization, brought the suit last June and asked for injunctive relief. Judge Schopler granted that injunction, ruling that the state law is likely in violation of the Commerce Clause.
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane celebrated the victory. “We are thankful the court enjoined the state from suing members of the firearm industry under this unconstitutional law that attempts to use the real threat of liability on commerce beyond California’s borders and impose its policy choices on sister states.”
Keane said his organization is further reviewing the court’s ruling to determine whether an amended complaint will be submitted. He said the state’s attempt to punish the industry with sweeping liability “is causing real and ongoing harm.”
The egregious law indeed pushed to export the state’s controversial gun control measures across the nation. AB 1594 targeted companies in other states that produce, sell and market weapons California considers “abnormally dangerous.”
It also opened the floodgates for civil lawsuits to be filed against the firearm industry by virtually anyone. They may originate with the Attorney General, any state municipality or even any person who claims harm from the misuse of a weapon legally sold by a distant third party.
It targeted commerce that is wholly conducted away from California’s jurisdiction. This clearly counteracts the U.S. system of federalism as well as the Commerce Clause.
Even further, it directly violates 2005’s Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
This congressional action was taken specifically to ward off such frivolous lawsuits as California attempted to spark. The PLCAA came at a time when anti-gunners worked to sue the industry out of existence, and its purpose was to protect from such irresponsible legal actions.
Plaintiffs also charged that the Golden State ran afoul of the First Amendment when it attempted to suppress advertising for weapons and related products. Lawmakers targeted marketing that took place away from California in another blatant overreach by Sacramento.
But even with this welcome ruling, the state remains the home of the nation’s most oppressive gun control laws. From the governor’s office down to local political leaders, there is never a shortage of pontificating over the existence of the Second Amendment and new ways to suppress gun rights.
What is needed is for common sense leaders to address the root issue of violence and not inanimate objects that harm no one on their own.
But lawmakers have plenty of support for the push against gun rights, which makes it doubly important for gun owners in California and elsewhere to stand up for what they believe in.
It is also necessary to support those organizations that faithfully defend the right to keep and bear arms. Without their daily work in the trenches, this treasured constitutional freedom would wither on the vine and cease to meaningfully exist.
