FOLLOW US

A group of companies being sued by the New York attorney general over their distribution of so-called ghost gun kits is asking the Second Circuit to weigh in on the case and decide whether the parts kits can be considered "firearms" and if they are entitled to immunity under federal firearms law.

In a petition filed Monday, the companies said a decision by the Second Circuit on those questions would substantially advance the litigation because a ruling in the companies' favor would cut down, if not eliminate, the claims in the suit filed by Attorney General Letitia James.

According to the petition, the circuit judges don't need to weigh into the facts and allegations of the case, as both are questions of law that can be decided on the text of New York's gun laws and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

The companies told the circuit court that the district court has already agreed that the question of whether their products are considered "firearms" is worth certifying to the Second Circuit and that it is a controlling question of law as the suit is based entirely on the idea that the parts kits are considered "firearms."

In addition, there is not only room for disagreement on the issue, but actual disagreement as the Fifth Circuit has found the opposite in VanDerStok v. Garland, finding that the products are not considered "firearms" under the Gun Control Act, according to the petition.

James' case began two years ago against the gun distributors, alleging that their actions resulted in an influx of ghost guns hitting New York and that violent crimes involving ghost guns have continued since she filed her suit.

In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman accepted the parties' agreement in which the defendants agreed to stop selling firearm parts that could be made into untraceable ghost guns, and in February Judge Furman largely denied the companies' bid to dismiss the suit, tossing only the state's negligence per se claim.

In Monday's petition, the companies further argued that the Second Circuit should take up their appeal of the district court's denial of their immunity under the PLCAA, saying a resolution here would free seven of the nine defendant companies from the litigation.

The Second Circuit should decide whether the district court was correct in finding that PLCAA immunity applies only where a third party's unlawful use of a firearm is the "sole" cause of the harm and argued that the act's exceptions allowing for negligence claims indicate that firearms makers should be otherwise immune.