Bradys try end-run against Protection of Lawful Commerce

(Reuters) - Recent deadly shootings in Wisconsin and Colorado reignited calls for more gun control in the United States, but one element has been largely missing from the debate: Should gun makers or sellers be held liable? A 2005 law that protects the gun industry from certain lawsuits has been challenged in Alaska in case that may give gun-control activists their next chance to test the law before the U.S. Supreme Court. ....
An Alaska state judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2010, citing the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits civil claims against gun makers and dealers for the "misuse of their products by others."
Kim's family is appealing to the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that the law violated the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for states or the people. Whichever way the court goes, its decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. ....
A big question in the Alaska case is whether Coday stole the gun or whether Coxe unlawfully sold it to him without conducting a background check. If the gun was sold unlawfully, the lawsuit against Coxe could have proceeded under one of the shield law's exceptions. .... Ultimately, Alaska Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg sided with Coxe. He found the Kim family's allegation that Coxe knowingly supplied the gun to Coday was "nothing more than unsupported speculation and conjecture." Pallenberg also ruled that the lawsuit's claim that Coxe ran his store negligently was barred under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
In February, Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center, an attorney for the Kim family, argued to the Alaska Supreme Court that the law was an affront to the state's judiciary, which was being deprived of the right to decide claims of negligence.
But the Kim family's constitutional arguments may be a long shot. Since the law was passed, federal appeals courts in both the 2nd and 9th U.S. circuits have said it is constitutional.

Click to expand...