Abbe R. Gluck (Yale University - Law School), Alexander Nabavi-Noori (Government of the United States of America - Senate), & Susan Wang have posted Gun Violence in Court (Journal of law, medicine & ethics 2020) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Litigation cannot solve a public health crisis. But litigation can be an effective complementary tool to regulation by increasing the salience of a public health issue, eliciting closely guarded information to move public opinion, and prompting legislative action. From tobacco to opioids, litigants have successfully turned to courts for monetary relief, to initiate systemic change, and to hold industry accountable. For years, litigators have been trying to push firearm cases into their own litigation moment. The recent success of the opioid litigation provides a tantalizing model for those who would turn to courts for gun control. But litigation against the gun industry poses special challenges. Not only has the regulatory regime failed to prevent a public safety hazard, Congress has consistently underfunded and understaffed the relevant regulatory actors. And in 2005, it legislatively immunized the gun industry from suit with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) — a protection not replicated in any other field. Over the last several decades, victims and stakeholders suing the gun industry have had limited success; victories remain confined to individual actors and unlike high-impact public litigations in other areas, aggregate class actions and major public litigation led by state attorneys general are noticeably absent in the firearm context. Industry-wide, high leverage lawsuits have been critical turning points in suits involving other high-risk products. Why not for guns?
