## Facts

- New York City sued numerous handgun manufacturers and distributors seeking injunctive relief and abatement, alleging their marketing and distribution practices created a public nuisance by supplying an illegal gun market.
- The City alleged defendants knowingly sold into distribution channels that foreseeably enabled diversion to criminals, including through straw purchases, and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent diversion.
- While the action was pending, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars certain civil actions against firearms manufacturers and sellers for harms resulting from third-party criminal misuse, subject to limited exceptions.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under PLCAA as a barred “qualified civil liability action.”
- The City argued its claims fit PLCAA’s “predicate exception,” asserting defendants knowingly violated New York criminal nuisance statutes, including N.Y. Penal Law § 240.45.
- The City also argued PLCAA was unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles and the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment.
- The district court held PLCAA applied but denied dismissal, concluding the predicate exception was satisfied and upholding PLCAA’s constitutionality.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s public-nuisance suit was a “qualified civil liability action” barred by PLCAA, or instead fell within the predicate exception for knowing violations of a statute “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms.
2. Whether PLCAA, as applied to pending actions, violated separation-of-powers principles or due process.
3. Whether PLCAA exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority or violated the Tenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint as barred by PLCAA.
- The court held the suit was a “qualified civil liability action” because it sought relief for harms resulting from third-party criminal misuse of firearms allegedly facilitated by defendants’ sales and distribution.
- The court held the predicate exception did not apply because the cited New York criminal nuisance provisions were general statutes not specifically directed to firearms sales or marketing.
- The court upheld PLCAA as constitutional under the Commerce Clause and rejected the separation-of-powers and Tenth Amendment challenges.

## Legal Principles

- PLCAA bars civil actions against firearms manufacturers and sellers seeking damages or other relief for harms resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms by third parties, unless a statutory exception applies.
- The PLCAA predicate exception is limited to actions alleging knowing violations of statutes specifically regulating firearms sales or marketing (or conduct directly connected to such activity), not general criminal or nuisance laws of broad applicability.
- Congress may change the substantive law governing pending cases; applying such changes to pending litigation does not, by itself, violate separation of powers.
- PLCAA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power where Congress rationally determines that certain categories of litigation burden interstate commerce in an economic market.
- Preemption of state tort claims pursuant to valid federal legislation does not constitute commandeering and does not violate the Tenth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required dismissal of New York City’s public-nuisance action because PLCAA preempted claims premised on third-party criminal gun misuse and the City did not allege a qualifying violation of a firearms-specific sales or marketing statute; the court also sustained PLCAA against constitutional challenges.


City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008)