Case 1:21-cv-11269-FDS Document 67 Filed 11/22/21 Page 22 of 58
contrast, protected “seller[s]” include companies “engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail” and “licensed” as firearms “dealer[s]” under federal law. Id. § 7903(6)(B) (incorporating definition of firearms “dealer[s]” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)). This case is clearly a “qualified civil action” presumptively barred by the PLCAA. First, Mexico is a covered “person” because it falls within the defined category of “any governmental entity.” Id. § 7903(3) (emphasis added). Congress easily could have excluded foreign sovereigns from this broad definition, but it did not. Second, the complaint alleges that defendants are either “manufacturers” or “seller[s]” that have obtained federal “license[s]” to manufacture or sell firearms. Compl. ¶¶ 31-41, 54. And third, all of Mexico’s alleged injuries flow from the “widespread epidemic of gun violence” committed in Mexico by the deliberate acts of thirdparty criminals. Id. ¶ 449. Thus, all of the “damages” sought in this case “result[] from” the “criminal or unlawful misuse of” firearms by “third part[ies].” 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A). Finally, as explained further below, there is no merit to Mexico’s claim that the PLCAA does not apply because the alleged harms occurred outside of the United States. By its plain terms, the PLCAA applies to all suits brought in U.S. courts against U.S. defendants for conduct in the U.S., regardless of where the alleged harms occurred. C.
No PLCAA exception applies to any of Mexico’s claims.
The broad immunity conferred by the PLCAA is subject to narrowly defined exceptions in 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5). Mexico tries to avail itself of three of these exceptions, but fails. The only way it can do so is by construing the exceptions so broadly—and so contrary to their plain meaning—that they would swallow the immunity Congress enacted the PLCAA to provide. 1.
The predicate exception does not apply.
The so-called “predicate exception” allows a manufacturer or seller of firearms to be sued if it “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of
13
