## Facts

- Several shooting victims and survivors, along with the District of Columbia, sued multiple federally licensed firearms manufacturers, importers, and distributors.
- Plaintiffs asserted strict liability under the District of Columbia Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990 (SLA), which imposed no-fault tort liability for damages from discharge of covered weapons in the District.
- In prior appellate proceedings, negligence and public nuisance claims were dismissed; only the SLA strict-liability claims remained.
- While the case was pending, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars civil actions against firearms manufacturers and sellers for harms resulting from criminal or unlawful misuse when the product functioned as designed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the PLCAA preempted and required dismissal of the remaining SLA claims; the trial court dismissed.
- Plaintiffs appealed, and the United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA.

## Issues

1. Whether the PLCAA applies to, and requires dismissal of, plaintiffs’ pending SLA strict-liability claims as “qualified civil liability actions.”
2. Whether the SLA claims fall within the PLCAA’s “predicate exception” for actions based on knowing violation of a statute “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms.
3. If the PLCAA requires dismissal, whether applying the PLCAA to pending SLA claims violates separation of powers, Fifth Amendment due process, or the Takings Clause.

## Decision

- The court held the PLCAA applied and required dismissal of the SLA claims.
- The court held the SLA claims did not qualify for the PLCAA predicate exception.
- The court rejected separation-of-powers, due process, and takings challenges to the PLCAA as applied.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- A civil action seeking to hold federally licensed firearms manufacturers or sellers liable for injuries caused by third-party criminal misuse of non-defective firearms falls within the PLCAA’s barred category of “qualified civil liability actions,” unless an exception applies.
- The PLCAA predicate exception is limited to claims based on knowing violations of statutes that regulate the sale or marketing of firearms (e.g., unlawful sales or compliance-type requirements), not statutes creating broad, no-fault tort liability for harms from later criminal misuse.
- Congress may change substantive law affecting pending cases and make the change applicable to ongoing litigation without violating separation of powers, so long as it does not command case-specific results under unchanged law.
- Extinguishing a statutory cause of action in pending litigation does not, by itself, violate due process where the legislation has a rational basis and does not arbitrarily single out parties.
- Abrogation of litigation rights through generally applicable economic regulation does not constitute a compensable taking merely because it eliminates a statutory cause of action.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the remaining strict-liability claims, concluding that the PLCAA barred the action, the SLA did not fit the statute’s predicate exception, and applying the PLCAA to pending claims was constitutional under separation-of-powers, due process, and takings doctrines.


District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 940 A.2d 163 (D.C. 2008)