Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Litigation Gun Industry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate panel hears arguments in Seattle's lawsuit against Glock over FERA and PLCAA immunity
Summary
At oral argument, Glock's counsel urged that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars Seattle's claims, while the city argued Washington's Firearms Industry Responsibility Act (FERA) creates a statutory predicate tied to sale and marketing that fits a PLCAA exception; the court submitted the case for decision after questioning on standing and statutory scope.
An appellate panel heard argument in the City of Seattle's lawsuit against Glock over whether Washington's Firearms Industry Responsibility Act (FERA) places Seattle's public-nuisance claim within the narrow predicate exception to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
Petitioner's counsel Troy Lipp told the court the trial-court order should be subject to immediate interlocutory review because it "effectively denies Glock the federal immunity from suit created by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." He argued Seattle's allegations focus on the design of Glock pistols and consequences of third-party criminal misuse, not a statutory violation of sale or marketing that the predicate exception requires. Lipp urged the court to read FERA's private-right language narrowly, saying Seattle alleges harms arising from governmental operations (police demand, public-safety costs) rather than a proprietary "special injury" that the statute's private-right provision contemplates.
Respondent counsel Adele Daniel, for the City of Seattle, said the City brought "straightforward claims premised on simple violations of the Firearms Industry Responsibility Act." Daniel told the court that FERA is a statute "applicable to the sale or marketing of firearm industry products" and that the predicate exception applies once a plaintiff alleges violations of specific FERA provisions (she identified provisions 3 and 6, and provision 6A addressing guns that can be easily converted). Daniel argued the statute does not require the complaint to allege that sales or marketing themselves were criminal, only that the statute is applicable to sale or marketing and that the defendants' conduct violates those statutory terms.
The court repeatedly pressed both sides on two issues: whether Seattle pleads a "special injury" sufficient to confer standing under the statute, and whether the City's allegations should be read as targeting product design (a design-based claim) or the sale and marketing of guns into Washington (a sale/marketing-based claim that, the City says, fits the PLCAA predicate exception). Lipp emphasized that PLCAA's immunity is intended to protect firearm industry members from suits grounded in third-party misuse, while Daniel said FERA's text and structure show the legislature intended to reach sale and marketing practices that facilitate conversion to fully automatic weapons.
Counsel also debated related authorities and precedent. The court asked counsel to distinguish the Second Circuit's James decision; Lipp said that case does not involve FERA and that this matter turns on the specific Washington statute. Daniel countered that numerous other courts have rejected similar preemption or immunity arguments in related suits and cautioned that accepting interlocutory review would require a court to overturn a large body of trial-court decisions.
The panel questioned whether PLCAA covers foreign manufacturers (Lipp conceded Glock Austria would not be covered by PLCAA) and whether the public-nuisance theory here is the pistol itself or the marketing and distribution that make conversion feasible; Daniel replied that FERA defines the nuisance through its violation and that satisfying the statute establishes the nuisance before addressing harm.
On the private-right issue, the court noted that some statutory provisions vest authority in the attorney general; Daniel pointed to FERA sections 12 and 15 and cited the City's prior litigation (against Monsanto) to show the City has brought private actions under analogous circumstances. Lipp replied in rebuttal that Seattle's claims are governmental in nature and urged the court to decide PLCAA immunity now to preserve the protection Congress provided.
After questioning and brief rebuttals, the court submitted the case for decision.
What happens next: The panel will issue a written decision resolving whether interlocutory review is appropriate and, if so, whether PLCAA bars the City's claims or whether Seattle's FERA-based predicate exception allows the suit to proceed.
