Federal Court Dismisses Aurora Case Against Ammo Sellers
In a major victory for firearms and ammunition retailers, a Federal District Court in Colorado has thrown out a Brady Center-backed lawsuit arising out of the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting. The Federal Court ruled that: “The federal and state immunity statutes prohibit the claims of liability for the sales of ammunition in this case.” If you are involved in sales of guns or ammunition, whether as a distributor or retailer, we strongly recommend you read the entire U.S. District Court decision by Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge. The Judge’s memorandum cites many important principles of law. CLICK HERE for Dismissal Order.
The case, Phillips v. Lucky Gunner, was brought by the parents of an Aurora shooting victim against several web-based businesses from whom the shooter, James Holmes, purchased materials. The plaintiffs sued two web-based ammo vendors, Lucky Gunner LLC and The Sportsman’s Guide, as well as suppliers of various tactical gear.
Brady Center lawyers representing the family members alleged that the Internet business practices of the FFLs did not include “reasonable safeguards” to prevent persons such as Holmes from purchasing their respective products.
The court found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) as well as a Colorado preemption statute required dismissal of the Brady Center’s lawsuit. In dismissing this action, the court followed legal precedents that have consistently found the PLCAA to be constitutional.
Story based on report by NSSF.org.Highlights of Court Decision:
The ammunition sellers are also protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq. (“PLCAA”). Enacted in 2005, the PLCAA generally prohibits claims against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers for damages and injunctive relief arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms and ammunition, unless the suit falls within one of six enumerated exceptions. 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903.
The Colorado legislature specifically limited suits against ammunition sellers to those where the plaintiff requests “damages” for relief, except in a product liability action which includes “any remedy.” Section 13-21-504.5(1). Subsection (2) precludes liability of the ammunition sellers for the actions of Holmes in any type of action. The plaintiffs’ claims of negligence, negligent entrustment and public nuisance based on the sales of ammunition to Holmes are barred and “shall” be dismissed. C.R.S. § 13-21-504.5(3).
Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court in Illinois declared the City of Chicago’s ban on the sale of firearms to be “unconstitutional under the Second Amendment”. The ruling was issued in a court case filed by Illinois firearms dealers and gun owners, challenging Chicago ordinances that ban virtually all sales and transfers of firearms inside Chicago city limits. 
In late May, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by the radical anti-hunting Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and six other groups demanding that the EPA ban traditional ammunition containing lead components. NSSF filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit last August. The court agreed with NSSF that EPA does not have the authority to regulate traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA had already twice denied attempts by CBD to have the agency ban traditional ammunition, and the court had dismissed an earlier case brought by CBD seeking the same relief.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) today filed a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the Gun Control Act to compel 8,500 federally licensed firearms retailers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report the sale of two or more rifles.
