by Ask the Brady Center.
In a case coming from Connecticut, Gilland v. Sportsman’s Outpost, Inc., four minutes meant a lot. From Larry Keane, General Counsel of NSSF:
After the Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs continued their attack against the PLCAA by renewing their motion to file a third amended complaint and separate motion to reargue the order dismissing their case. Unfortunately for the Brady Campaign, their attorneys filed their paperwork four minutes after the filing deadline. The Superior Court subsequently denied the motion to reargue as untimely and denied their motion to amend — in part because the plaintiffs had already been granted several opportunities to establish that their claims were not barred by the PLCAA and failed to do so each time.
In this case the plaintiffs tried to hold a store in Connecticut responsible for a wrongful death claim as well as negligence for a firearm that was stolen from it. The defendents argued that under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) they couldn’t be sued and the Superior Court agreed.
The Brady Center appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court arguing for a chance to reargue their case and again challenging the PLCAA’s constitutionality. This appeal was denied and the court issued a ruling affirming the Superior Court’s decision dismissing the case on PLCAA grounds and upholding its constitutionality.
The full opinion of the Superior Court in Hartford from May can be found here.
The NSSF reported on this in their May 31st Bullet Points saying:
Last week a Connecticut trial court dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Brady Center against a Connecticut firearms retailer, Sportsmen’s Outpost, on the grounds that the case was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). A firearm and ammunition were stolen from the dealer in 2007 and used by the thief several weeks later to murder his ex-wife and commit suicide. The Brady Center unsuccessfully argued that the stolen firearm was somehow transferred by the dealer and that the dealer should have conducted a Brady background check on the thief when he walked into the store acting like a customer asking to see firearms. Of course, the Brady Center knows background checks can only be performed when a firearm is being transferred, not whenever any customer asks to look at a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA. Representing Sportsmen’s Outpost was the Renzulli Law Firm of White Plains, N.Y.