Pa. Supreme Court hears debate on gun-industry immunity in lawsuit over Mt. Pleasant boy's death

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday heard argument on whether a federal law that protects gun manufacturers from civil liability prohibits a Westmoreland County family from suing the company whose gun killed their teenage son.

The case turns on the court’s interpretation of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which passed in 2005 after intense lobbying in Congress by the gun industry.

The act gives immunity to firearms manufacturers from civil litigation with limited exception.

If it is struck down, gun-safety advocates said, it would be a huge victory in Pennsylvania — with possible ramifications across the country.

“If (the act) is struck down as unconstitutional, victims of gun industry negligence and defective firearms would have the same rights to seek justice as everyone else in society,” Jonathan Lowy, the president and founder of Global Action on Gun Violence, said in a recent interview. “It is important for victims and families to allow the civil justice system to hold bad actors accountable.”

The state Supreme Court, meeting in Downtown Pittsburgh on Tuesday, heard oral argument for nearly 90 minutes.

On March 20, 2016, 13-year-old J.R. Gustafson of Mt. Pleasant was shot and killed when his friend fired a gun at him at a home in Westmoreland County.

The 14-year-old friend, John Burnsworth III, got the gun from the homeowner, removed the magazine and thought it was unloaded. But it wasn’t; there was still a bullet in the chamber. He then pointed it at J.R. and pulled the trigger.

Burnsworth pleaded delinquent to involuntary manslaughter in juvenile court.

J.R.’s parents, Mark and Leah Gustafson, filed a lawsuit against Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store in 2018 in Westmoreland County, alleging negligence and strict liability for the manufacture and sale of a defective handgun. They argued that the gun should not have been able to fire with the magazine removed, or, in the alternative, there should have been better indicators on the weapon to show it was loaded.

However, Springfield cited the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and Westmoreland County Judge Harry Smail Jr. threw the lawsuit out in January 2019.

Smail found that the act gives immunity to Springfield in cases where a legal weapon was used to commit a criminal act.

However, a three-judge Superior Court panel in 2020 and then a nine-member panel in August 2022 ruled that the federal act was unconstitutional, finding that Congress had overstepped its authority.

“Tort law is decidedly a state issue. If courts allow Congress to regulate tort litigation involving these products, it could eventually regulate all litigation,” the panel wrote. “This is not permitted under the Constitution of the United States’ principles of federalism.”

Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store appealed, with backing from the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil division.

Christopher Renzulli, representing Springfield, argued that Congress’ intent in passing the act was clear — it was prohibiting state courts from hearing civil lawsuits in cases of criminal misuse of a gun.

And, he continued, if Congress had a rational basis to pass the act, then it must stand.

“These types of lawsuits were crippling an industry and sending it into bankruptcy,” Renzulli said. “It cost these companies a lot of money.”

“So what?” interjected state Supreme Court Justice Christine Donohue. “So what if that’s the cost of doing business?”

Renzulli said that if a gun had a product defect resulting in death or injury, a lawsuit can still move forward under the act.

But in the Gustafsons’ case, he argued, because Burnsworth admitted to involuntary manslaughter, the death was caused by a crime, and therefore the lawsuit must be thrown out.

Under the act, the product liability exception does not apply “where the discharge of the firearm was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense.”

Renzulli argued that Burnsworth committed several “volitional” acts that day — including retrieving the gun, holding it to J.R.’s head and pulling the trigger.

“Doesn’t the discharge here have to be volitional?” Donohue asked.

“Absolutely not, your honor,” Renzulli answered. “The volitional act is pulling the trigger.”

But Lowy, who argued on behalf of the Gustafsons, disagreed.

“I believe there is no admission the discharge of the gun was caused by a volitional act,” he said.

Lowy further argued that the act is not clear that Congress intended for it to apply in an unintentional discharge of a gun.

“Did Congress state clearly it intended to prohibit unintentional shootings by juveniles?” Lowy asked the court.

Because Burnsworth pleaded in juvenile court, Lowy continued, that does not count under Pennsylvania law as a criminal offense.

“We only have one crimes code,” replied Chief Justice Debra Todd. “The basic offense is exactly the same whether it’s a juvenile or adult, isn’t it?”

Lowy did not directly answer the question.

In the alternative, if the court does not find that the product defect exception applies, Lowy said, the justices could find — like the Superior Court did before them — that the act is unconstitutional.

In writing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress explicitly stated that it intended to prevent lawsuits that “impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.”

But in the Superior Court nine-member decision, the panel noted that neither J.R. nor his parents purchased the gun that killed him, which means they did not engage in interstate commerce of any kind.

“Hence, at the time of J.R.’s death, there was no existing commercial activity between the Gustafsons and the gun industry for Congress to regulate,” they wrote in their opinion.

“Congress may not regulate those who do not actively participate in commerce with an interstate industry. Nor may it rely upon the Commerce Clause as a catchall to use any eventual economic impact upon an interstate industry as a pretext to legislate on purely state matters.”

Lowy took that one step further.

“Congress has no legitimate business telling the states how they make their law.”