## Facts

- Ray Coxe owned and operated Rayco Sales, a federally licensed firearms dealership in Juneau, Alaska.
- In August 2006, Jason Coday entered the store and examined several .22-caliber rifles, including a used rifle priced at $195.
- Coxe later claimed Coday appeared disheveled and carried camping items, but that Coxe and others observed no signs of intoxication or violence.
- Coxe asserted Coday appeared to leave; later an employee noticed the rifle missing and $200 left on the counter.
- Coxe reported the rifle as stolen to police after unsuccessfully looking for Coday.
- Two days later, Coday used the rifle to shoot and kill Simone Y. Kim, a stranger.
- Kim’s Estate sued Coxe for wrongful death, alleging either (1) an unlawful firearm sale (without required paperwork and checks) or (2) negligence in failing to secure the firearm and prevent its taking.
- Coxe sought summary judgment under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars certain suits against firearm sellers for harms caused by third-party criminal misuse.
- The United States intervened to defend PLCAA’s constitutionality.

## Issues

1. Whether PLCAA is constitutional as applied to a state wrongful-death tort action against a licensed firearm seller.
2. Whether the Estate’s theories fit within PLCAA exceptions, including (a) a knowing violation of a statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms and (b) negligent entrustment.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper given uncertainty about what evidence was properly in the record and considered by the trial court.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held PLCAA is constitutional.
- The court affirmed the superior court’s general interpretation of PLCAA and its exceptions.
- The court vacated the grant of summary judgment to Coxe because it was unclear whether certain evidence was properly before, or should have been considered by, the superior court.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including clarification of the summary-judgment record and reconsideration of PLCAA’s application on a proper evidentiary basis.

## Legal Principles

- PLCAA validly preempts certain state-law tort actions as a substantive federal limitation/defense governing “qualified civil liability actions” against firearm sellers for harms caused by third-party criminal misuse.
- Congress may enact PLCAA under its Commerce Clause authority; applying PLCAA in state court is not unconstitutional commandeering and does not violate separation-of-powers or due-process principles on the theories presented.
- PLCAA exceptions are limited and fact dependent, including:
  - Actions based on a seller’s knowing violation of a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, where the violation is a proximate cause of the harm.
  - Actions for negligent entrustment, requiring a showing that the seller knew or reasonably should have known the recipient was likely to use the firearm in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to others.
- Summary judgment requires a clear, proper evidentiary record and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party; uncertainty about what evidence was considered can require vacatur and remand.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld PLCAA’s constitutionality and agreed with the trial court’s general reading of PLCAA’s immunity and exceptions, but it vacated summary judgment because the evidentiary record supporting dismissal was unclear and remanded for reconsideration under the clarified record.


Estate of Kim ex rel. Alexander v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2013)