The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has long been a cornerstone of protection for firearms manufacturers and sellers, shielding them from liability when their products are misused in crimes. But recent litigation, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.,1 shows how litigants continue to test the boundaries of this federal law. While the ruling ultimately upheld the PLCAA’s protections, the case is a reminder of the ongoing scrutiny the law faces—and why it remains essential for the firearms industry.
What Is the PLCAA?
The PLCAA, enacted in 2005, was designed to prevent lawsuits seeking to hold firearms manufacturers and sellers liable for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. Congress passed the law with clear intent: to curb what it viewed as an abuse of the legal system and to protect a lawful industry from being unfairly targeted. However, the law does not provide blanket immunity. It includes several exceptions, such as claims involving defective products, breach of contract or warranty, and violations of laws governing the sale or marketing of firearms.
Despite its clear language and intent, the PLCAA has faced relentless challenges over the years. Advocacy groups, like Everytown Law, have published resources such as “Firearms Litigation: A Practitioner’s Guide to PLCAA and Beyond” to help plaintiffs explore potential vulnerabilities in the statute. The Gustafson case is the latest high-profile test of the law’s strength.
The Gustafson Case: A Tragic Incident and a Legal Battle
In Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., a tragic accident set the stage for a legal showdown. In 2016, 13-year-old J.R. Gustafson was accidentally shot and killed by his 14-year-old friend, who believed the semi-automatic handgun in question was unloaded. The parents of J.R. filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Springfield Armory, the firearm’s manufacturer, and the retailer that sold the gun. They alleged that the firearm was defectively designed because it lacked a magazine disconnect safety, which would have prevented it from firing without the magazine inserted.
Initially, the trial court dismissed the case, citing the PLCAA as a bar to the Gustafsons’2 claims. However, the Superior Court revived the lawsuit, calling the PLCAA unconstitutional.3 The majority opinion concluded the PLCAA exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority and violated the Tenth Amendment by infringing on state sovereignty. In its analysis, the majority suggested the law improperly preempted state tort law and disrupted the balance of federalism by dictating how states could regulate firearms through their judicial systems. However, the dissenting judges argued that the PLCAA was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, emphasizing that the law directly targeted lawsuits that posed a substantial burden on the firearms industry, which operates across state lines.
The Superior Court’s decision set up critical questions for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: was the PLCAA constitutional, and did it apply to bar the Gustafsons’ claims?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision
In its March 31, 2025 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s ruling, holding that the PLCAA is both constitutional and applicable in this case. Here’s how the court arrived at its decision:
- Qualified Civil Liability Action: The court determined that the Gustafsons’ lawsuit fell squarely within the PLCAA’s definition of a “qualified civil liability action.” The harm to J.R. resulted from the “criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm—a key trigger for the law’s protections.
- Product Liability Exception: The Gustafsons argued that their claims fell under the PLCAA’s product liability exception, which allows lawsuits for injuries caused by defective firearms. However, the court ruled that this exception did not apply because the discharge of the firearm was caused by a “volitional act” that constituted a criminal offense—specifically, the juvenile’s decision to pull the trigger.
- Constitutionality of the PLCAA: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the PLCAA’s constitutionality, emphasizing that Congress acted within its Commerce Clause powers to regulate interstate commerce. The court noted that the firearms industry operates across state lines and that lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers could impose significant burdens on interstate commerce. It also rejected the argument that the PLCAA violated the Tenth Amendment or principles of federalism, determining that preempting certain state tort claims did not amount to commandeering state governments. Instead, the PLCAA merely set limits on the types of lawsuits that could be brought, which is a valid exercise of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause.
Why Gustafson Matters
At first glance, the Gustafson decision may seem like a straightforward application of the PLCAA. But it is more than that. The case underscores the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding the law and highlights why its protections remain critical for the firearms industry.
- Reaffirming the PLCAA’s Constitutionality: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision is a significant win for proponents of the PLCAA. By upholding the law against constitutional challenges, the court reinforced its role as a shield for manufacturers and sellers operating within the bounds of the law.
- Clarifying the Product Liability Exception: The court’s interpretation of the product liability exception provides valuable guidance for future cases. By focusing on the “volitional act” of the shooter, the court drew a line between accidents caused by defective products and those resulting from human misuse.
- A Broader Implication for Federal Preemption: The decision also has implications beyond the firearms industry. It reinforces the principle that federal laws like the PLCAA can preempt state tort claims, even in areas traditionally governed by state law. This is a critical point for any industry facing similar legal challenges.
Conclusion
The Gustafson case is a reminder of why the PLCAA was enacted and why it remains essential. By upholding the law’s constitutionality and clarifying its scope, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reaffirmed the protections it offers to lawful businesses in the firearms industry. At the same time, the case highlights the need for continued vigilance in defending the PLCAA against ongoing challenges.
For defense lawyers and their corporate clients in the firearms industry, the Gustafson decision is more than just a win—it is a call to stay proactive in protecting the rights of lawful businesses. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the PLCAA will undoubtedly remain a focal point in the broader debate over firearms liability and federal preemption.
[View source.]
