In a troubling turn for the firearms industry and the sporting community, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s dismissal of Lowy v. Daniel Defense. This lawsuit seeks to hold firearms manufacturers and industry members liable for the criminal actions of a third party—a move that directly threatens the federal protections provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The case has been sent back to the lower court for additional proceedings, despite strong arguments raised by the Sportsmen’s Alliance and Safari Club International in our joint amicus brief.
The “Predicate Exception” Trap
Recently, gun-control advocates have keyed in on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s (“PLCAA”) “predicate exception,” which allows the industry to be sued if it knowingly violated sales or marketing laws in a way that caused a harm. Activists are now attempting to stretch this definition, claiming that standard firearm advertisements are “inducing” people to commit crimes.
“PLCAA’s predicate exemption was meant to allow lawsuits against the industry for traditional false advertising or marketing claims,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “Those laws forbid companies from making misleading statements about their products, like saying that the product is safe or good to use in some manner when it’s not. It was never meant to be a content-based restriction on the companies’ advertisements.”
What You Need to Know: Key Takeaways
- Standing vs. Merits: The Fourth Circuit’s ruling was based on “standing.” It ruled that as long as a lawsuit alleges advertisements would induce crimes, the plaintiff has the right to bring the suit—even if there is no proof the criminal ever saw the ad.
- PLCAA is Still the Goal: While the case moves forward, the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the PLCAA protections themselves. The fight to uphold federal law is far from over.
- Threat to Hunting Heritage: By targeting how firearms are marketed, activists aim to “de-normalize” hunting and shooting sports, making it legally risky for companies to depict traditional sporting uses in their outreach.
The Path Ahead
“The plaintiffs still have a long way to go in this case,” Jean continued. “The ruling was only on standing, so it does not address PLCAA or the First Amendment problems with the case. It does keep the industry defendants in court, which is what PLCAA was supposed to prevent.”
The legacy of hunting, fishing, and trapping depends on our actions today. The Sportsmen’s Alliance will continue to monitor this lawsuit and provide updates as the case returns to the district court.
Stand with us. Your support of the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund is what allows us to fight back against those who seek to bully and erode our heritage. We will never give up and never give in while securing our future against those seeking to destroy our values and traditions.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance guarantees hunting, fishing and trapping for the American sportsman now and forever. We’re there when sportsmen need us most. We are the only organization specifically created to protect the individual hunter, angler, and trapper – no matter the threat. We will never compromise when it comes to defending our way of life in the courts, in the legislatures, in the public square and at the ballot box. We make this promise to the American sportsman: we will never give up and never give in while proudly securing our future against those seeking to destroy our values, beliefs, and traditions. Stay connected to Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
