ABA Resolution 604: A Call to Repeal PLCAA and Enact State-Level Firearm Industry Responsibility Acts
In February 2026, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted Resolution 604, formally urging Congress to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and encouraging states to enact laws that establish standards of responsible conduct for the firearms industry. This Resolution came from the ABA Standing Committee on Gun Violence.
Enacted in 2005, PLCAA grants federally licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers of firearms broad immunity from civil liability in cases involving the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by a third party. The ABA characterizes this statute as a significant outlier in American tort law, arguing that it removes the standard civil liability incentives that traditionally drive consumer product safety, responsible marketing, and internal compliance. Personally, I strongly support the ABA's Resolution. As a law professor, I want to not that I am also impressed with how well-written and well-reasoned this document is. The Committee did an excellent job drafting this.
The resolution arrives in the wake of the Supreme Court's
June 2025 decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos
Mexicanos, the Court's first opinion interpreting PLCAA. In that case, the
Court unanimously held that the Mexican government failed to plausibly allege
that gun industry defendants knowingly aided and abetted legal violations that
fueled cartel violence. While the Court declined the industry's request to rule
that criminal cartel involvement automatically severs manufacturer liability,
the decision highlighted the steep legal barriers plaintiffs face. The ABA
report notes that PLCAA frustrates the twin aims of civil liability—deterrence
and compensation—by leaving victims of gun violence without a viable forum for
relief, even in cases of pervasive negligence.
Recognizing the hurdles of federal repeal, the ABA
resolution strongly advocates for state-level action through Firearm Industry
Responsibility Acts (FIRAs). While PLCAA provides broad immunity, it contains a
crucial "predicate exception" that permits civil lawsuits if a
manufacturer or seller knowingly violates a state or federal statute applicable
to the sale or marketing of firearms. FIRAs capitalize on this exception by
explicitly imposing affirmative obligations on firearm industry members to
adhere to "reasonable controls and procedures" designed to prevent
unlawful sales and diversion. By formally codifying these duties and clarifying
that generally applicable consumer protection laws apply to the gun industry,
states can ensure that the firearms industry remains subject to baseline
commercial standards without running afoul of PLCAA.
To date, ten states—including New York, California, and
Connecticut—have enacted FIRAs. These statutes have already begun to withstand
federal legal scrutiny. In July 2025, the Second Circuit upheld New York's FIRA
in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James, rejecting
industry arguments that the statute was preempted by PLCAA or violated the
Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause. To ensure these laws are
effective, FIRAs typically authorize both state attorneys general and private
individuals to seek remedies such as compensatory damages, punitive damages,
and injunctive relief.
Ultimately, ABA Resolution 604 asserts that restoring
traditional tort liability is necessary to hold a small number of irresponsible
gun companies accountable, as these companies currently disproportionately
supply the illegal market without fear of civil litigation. Until Congress
repeals PLCAA, state-level FIRAs represent the most constitutionally sound and
legally viable mechanism to mandate reasonable care within the firearms market
and provide shooting survivors with a path to justice.
Download the ABA's Resolution 604 here: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/policy/midyear-2026/604-midyear-2026.pdf
