Editorial: Will Mt. Pleasant boy's death change federal law?

J.R. Gustafson should be 21 years old. He should be a volunteer firefighter. He should be hunting and fishing and loving life with his family in Mt. Pleasant.

But Gustafson’s life was cut short at just 13. He was in seventh grade when he was killed by a 14-year-old friend. It was a heartbreaking story, where both the shooter and a babysitter, then 18, pleaded guilty to their parts in what happened.

The question has been whether the line of responsibility would end there. Gustafson’s parents filed a lawsuit against Springfield Armory — the manufacturer of the handgun in question — and seller Saloom Department Store.

Whether there is responsibility in the tragedy is, sadly, not at issue right now. For six years, the issue has been whether the suit is allowed at all.

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments.

Lawsuits involving gun manufacturers and dealers are tricky because of the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It acts like a Kevlar vest — an almost bulletproof shield that stands between the manufacturers and consequences for the actions of others.

The idea is that gun crimes or accidents arising from misuse are not the responsibility of the manufacturer. It isn’t the car company’s fault that a drunk driver causes a crash, for instance. The 2005 law spells out a specific protection for gun manufacturers along that line.

It has been challenged. The most prominent example is a suit brought by families of Sandy Hook Elementary School victims against semiautomatic rifle manufacturer Remington. It addressed “unethical and irresponsible” marketing.

While a lower court originally dismissed the case, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that decision in 2019, allowing the suit to proceed under state law. Remington settled in 2022 for $73 million and the release of internal documents. The company filed bankruptcy and reorganized under two separate companies.

The Gustafson case is similar. While Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Harry Smail Jr. tossed it in 2019, the state Superior Court said in 2020 and 2022 that the federal law unconstitutionally limits state authority.

Springfield Armory attorney Christopher Renzulli argued that lawsuits were “crippling the industry.” State Supreme Court Justice Christine Donohue responded with two words:

“So what?”

This is not, as some want to frame it, a Second Amendment issue. The ability to hold a manufacturer accountable for its decisions and practices is not a threat to the right to bear arms any more than holding a journalist responsible for libel damages attacks freedom of the press. In fact, it strengthens it.

An Annals of Internal Medicine study in 2022 showed people are most likely to be injured by a handgun in the home of a lawful handgun owner. In what is frequently missed in these cases, the people who may need to have redress against a manufacturer are its customers.

Although mass events like Sandy Hook or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting draw the attention and calls for action, individual tragedies are more prevalent. A 13-year-old kid who didn’t grow up may be the catalyst for accountability.