advance the debate over gun rights and regulations, so it is a twofold mission of helping to establish an illegal academy now that the supreme court is getting back into establishing the second amendment firearms law. the other mission is to be reliable and balance resources to lawmakers, to media and to the interest person and others scholars and judges and lawyers. host: when it comes to guns, the idea of shooting, what does that intersection apply? how much legal liability does the gun manufacturer have these days? gus -- asked: a lot of it depends on the state and there is federal protection called the protection of lawful commerce in -- act. it was packed -- passed in 2005 it limits the amount of liability that gun manufacturers and sellers can have when a third-party uses a gun to cause harm. what is essentially done -- did in 2005 was cut off most lawsuits against that kind of farm. we have seen in recent years is that a few lawsuits have been successfully able to get around that barrier by relying on some statutory exceptions built into the law that allows lawsuits when there are allegations that the manufacture have violated the law. that is what we saw in the sandy hook case, those cases have been getting around the federal barrier but it still stands as a pretty large barrier to most lawsuits trying to recover for these kinds of harms. host: if someone attempts to sue a gun manufacturer, how successful are they? guest: fairly unsuccessful if the claim is arising out of someone using that gun to cause harm. i will give to scenarios. one would be if i just buy a gun and say malfunctions and it explodes in my hand, the federal barrier is not going to be an impediment to that kind of lawsuit it does not block lawsuits based on that product defect, you can to the manufacturer there will be no grounds to invoke this immunity statutes. what it does do is if you or a loved one is injured in a mass shooting incident and you allege that the manufacture of those guns is responsible or the seller of those guns is responsible, in most cases there's going to be a threshold question of whether the federal immunity applies. for most of the period from 2005 to the present it has been a big barrier. most of the cases have been dismissed or most have not been brought because of the federal barrier, which says, can you entertain these lawsuits? they cannot get to that stage of development whether the allegations were true. fairly unsuccessful but only in this case where there is an allegation that the manufacturer or seller responsible for things that arise from a third party gun. host -- let me give an example. in sandy hook lawsuit, the allegations by the surviving family members of the tragic shooting allege that the bushmaster using the shooting had marketed that weapon as a tool for offensive illegal conduct they were alleging that remington was violating what is a connecticut state law that says you cannot market products for legal activities. they were alleging a violation of law and because there was -- they were alleging a violation of law, what that man is the federal immunity statute does not apply, the statute has a specific carveout where it says all of these claims are preemptive, they are not allowed to be brought except for if you allege that there was a violation of a state or federal law applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm. that is the statutory language that a lot of courts are focused on, what does it mean to the firearm selling in the connecticut supreme court says that our consumer statute says you cannot market a weapon or any product for illegal activities, that is the kind of statute that they envisioned in forming the basis for a lawsuit when there are allegations that a manufacturer or seller has violated that type of law. host: if you want to ask them questions about those legal liabilities for gun manufacturers you can call us on the line. for democrats. and independents. you can also text -- when owners can call us at this number. use that same number if you want to text us this morning. mr. charles you talk about -- as a law, talk about how we got this all in the first place. guest: we saw in the 80's and 90's, gun manufacturers and dealers picking up. one of the main impetus for the law was that in the late 1990's, municipalities started suing gun manufacturers and mass. we saw cities like new york, bringing lawsuits against not just one manufacturer but a whole bunch of gun manufacturers for not just single shooting incidents but for all of the increased gun crimes that the city alleged was traceable to the practices of these manufacturers. this was a different kind of theory than the one we saw in the sandy hook case. this was a theory that said these manufacturers were intentionally or at leased inadvertently, through their own negligence, allowing their products to be oversupplied into certain markets, knowing full well that that oversupply into those markets would lead to their diversion into the illegal marketplaceand in the hands of those who intend on doing harm. those allegations since they were so widespread they were against all major gun manufacturers. those led to concerns in the gun industry that those with the lawsuit even if those were not successful, those lawsuits would bring legal liability and fees that the manufacturers had to defend against. they went to statehouses and the federal legislature. and said, we need protection from these kinds of lawsuits and that is why in 2005 got the protection of lawful commerce and arms act. congress was concerned about this kind of liability or lawsuit, even one it might not have been successful ultimately. it was just the fact that it was sustained by so many of these losses that congress said it needed to be remedied. host: wasn't a partisan issue, was it one body over the other, how did that break down you know? guest: i know there was certainly a bipartisan vote in favor of the law it was not just one party, it was supported by republicans more than democrats but it was not only one party. host: even after -- as of yesterday in baltimore, there was a lawsuit filed against the company for what is known as ghost guns here is part of the argument being used in the case. the lawsuit alleges that it undermines federal and state law laws are manufacturing providing ghost gun at kits and parts which lacks serial numbers making them impossible to trace, for people who do not undergo back on jobs -- background checks, is that another round of winning a suit, as you described is a difficult way? guest: let me copy at this -- caveat this. is there is an allegation that what they are doing is violating federal law, state or federal law, that applies the sale or marketing of firearms, that is going to be a way to get out from under placa. they will have to prove those claims in court even if they get under it. removing it just means you can have that lawsuit proceed into court, if there alleging that there is a violation of a lot law, that is one of the primary ways in which these laws can move forward, notwithstanding placa, when there's an allegation of an underlying statute. host: jacob charles joining us for this conversation. let's start with rex from minnesota. he's on our line from democrats. go ahead with your question. caller: great. appreciate the opportunity. always good to be on c-span. i have a very, basic question for you, which relates to the gun retailers. it seems like right now, we are looking for somebody to blame. you can't really blame the perpetrator because they are dead in the uvalde case and you can't hold the manufacturers accountable. what about the retailers and what about having a public-private partnership between the police and the retailer so that when somebody suspicious comes and buys a gun and whole bunch of ammunition, doesn't that raise the red flag that the retailer would need in order to notify the police so that they can follow up on it? it seems like there needs to be another layer of accountability for the gun retailer. i will hold on for your answer. host: thanks for the question. guest: thanks for that. i will say two things. the sellers are included in placa's protection, unless there is an allegation they violated the laws, the other ones which are much smaller, unless there was a allegation they are protected by placa. in terms of what more they could be doing, you mentioned the word red flag and that is a phrase that is in proposed legislation. there are laws in 19 states and the district of columbia is being considered in congress right now to enact a red flag law that would allow law enforcement or sometimes family members to go to court and seek an order when there are these red flags, when someone is in an imminent risk to harm themselves or others based on the behavioral indicators of risk, threats, and behavior that indicates they may do something harmful to their cells or others. i think -- themselves or others. maybe there's not as much appetite there at there would be for other actors. host: from tampa, florida we will hear from charlotte. caller: i have something to say about this whole gun situation. i want to tell you the leading cause of death for children is not having a car seat. but yet, cops are not allowed to stop or pull people over because it is racist yet we're not ready to have that conversation. another thing is the biggest crisis we have is fentanyl. we have the biggest drug crisis since aids and crack, get here we are. host: ok, that is charlotte in tampa. mr. charles you can address that. as far as the analogies apply to this you probably heard these but i want to get your comment. we have a viewer from twitter says that are automatic or's lawmaker -- automakers liable for people dying from cars? i am i am sure you hear these analogies. guest: on whether or not a manufacturers liable for people using the product -- misusing the product. do things in regard to that, -- two things in regard to that. the civil law and which we hold individuals responsible for, i the normal principal -- the normal principal in general, the manufacturers responsible for feeble misuse of products -- foreseeable misuse of products. in general we have those kinds of laws. in fact, before placa was enacted manufacturers are being held liable because juries were saying that the causal link was too attenuated and it was not their fault and they were not liable for that. placa is different. it comes up before we get these increase and said we cannot bring these cases at all even in situations in which under normal tort principles the manufacturer might be liable. that is on one side of the analogy. the other side, a few other industries have this kind of protection. placa is a unique statute in the sense that is as two things . it provides an industry protection from lawsuits and it does not pair it with an alternative compensation scheme. congress has provided immunity for vaccine manufacturers and paired it with a compensation scheme that allows those individuals who suffer harm to recover some compensation. there are some other, smaller statues that congress has enacted but this is one of the largest ones. it is doing some of the most work and protection industry against lawsuits without pairing it with an alternative compensation scheme. host: in delaware, democrats line. caller: good morning. i think there is a reason that most shooters have been 18 to 20-year-olds, due to the gun laws marketing the ar-15 to that age group. i do not think marketing has been mentioned enough. i am glad to hear you talking about marketing this morning. i want to ask you is there a case for the supreme court that has to do with the shootings and our guns? host: thank you. guest: great question. on the age restriction, there are laws in some states like california that restrict their weapons a person can buy before they are 21. n can buy before they are 21. in california, you cannot purchase a semi automatic rifle until you are 21. that challenge -- that law has been challenged on second amendment grounds. i do not think that case will be the last word on the subject. other states have been experimenting with these laws, as well. florida enacted a law erasing the age to 21 after the parkland shooting. that is a proposal on the table given what we have seen with a lot of the shooters being 18 and 19-year-olds going to gun stores when they know they have turned legal age to purchase a weapon. in terms of marketing claims you raised, that i think is what the sandy hook lawsuit showed his possible to get out from under the barrier that is plcaa. alleging that manufacturers are marketing their weapons in ways that would violate the law is a way to both satisfy there is a legal claim because most states prohibit product manufacturer from advertising their products for illegal uses. and also because it is a violation of the statute, a way for them to get out from under plcaa because plcaa does not stop lawsuits based on unlawful marketing. host: there was also a question about the supreme court. they are considering a case about concealed handguns. guest: there is a current secondment case coming to the supreme court we expect to come out in a few weeks. it is about new york's concealed carry law. i would be happy to address questions about that but there are no cases before the supreme court about civil liability for gun manufacturers. remington did ask the supreme court to review the connecticut supreme court decision but allowed alonso to go forward. the supreme court up -- but allowed it to go forward. if the court was frustrated or thought the lower court had got it demonstrably wrong, it might have taken the case to say so but it did not. host: if you could give us the gist of the case if you do not mind. guest: the challenge currently going on is to new york state's concealed carry permit in scheme. in new york state, in order to get a concealed carry permit, the person has to show proper because. it is interpreted to mean you have to show a special need for self-defense. you cannot just go into a licensed official and say i am afraid or i just want a gun for self-defense. that will not be sufficient. the challengers from upstate new york are saying they want guns outside of the home for that reason. they want to concealed carry permit. the supreme court will determine whether or not states can require this kind of good cause. some states have similar schemes that require good cause showing before a concealed carry license is granted. the majority of states do not have them and some states are going in the opposite direction. they are limiting requirements for any kind of ferment or license to carry concealed. host: south carolina, independent line, michael. go ahead caller:. i am in one of the states that they seem to be going backward on. i have a couple questions, one very broad and one specific. can you first of all help me parse the distinction, the second amendment claims no infringement on the right to bear arms. i do not think nuclear arms should be included in there. can you help me parse the line of what the division is? i understand micro standing might be able to help substantially, i think a micro stamped bullet can be removed from a victim and traced directly to an individual weapon , which therefore could help solve crimes if the weapons are registered to people. in my mind, that shows the politicians are protecting the anonymity of guns more than the interest of solving murders. host: thank you very much. guest: i will take the micro stamping one first. california has a micro stamping requirement. the requirement means a serial number is required to be stamped on the bullet so if the shell casing is not connected to the scene, the bullet will still have the serial number. there is a debate about how feasible this is for ammunition manufacturers to actually do at this point. there is a requirement in california and new york. if you could remind the of the first. host: the second amendment and the aspect of infringement. guest: the second amendment says shall not be infringed. the supreme court decision where it first said this protects an individual right unconnected to the militia. it said the second amendment is not absolute, just like all other rights are not absolute. the first amendment says congress shall not make a law -- people think a lot law toward freedom of speech is unconstitutional. one of the things the supreme court will do in this most recent decision is to tell lower courts how they should be evaluating these claims. should they be evaluating the same way they evaluate first amend my claims, which is to look to what the government interest is. is it in reducing suicides? reducing mass shootings? reducing gun violence more generally? and see how closely aligned a law is to meeting the interest. that is one way to look at the constitutionality of laws we use in the first amendment context. another way to look at the second amendment a lot of conservative judges have been advocating for is to look to history and tradition to see if gun regulation was used in the past and if it was it is constitutional. if it was not, it is not constitutional. those judges are quick to say that does not mean every modern regulation is not constitutional but we have to find an analogy to the past to uphold modern regulation. the supreme court is likely to say which of the two paths lower court should take. host: republican line, silver spring, maryland. caller: thank you so much. good morning. when these mass shootings happen and the numbers get a lot of play in the media, the number of people killed or injured, i am thinking about two different sets of numbers. the first are the amount of campaign contributions are politicians get from the gun lobby's that seem to on the surface lead to our ability or inability to pass restrictions on guns. the other numbers i am thinking about are the advertising revenue that newspapers, television, radio, etc. get from gun manufacturers to advertise about guns. i am wondering, should politicians be held liable for their negligence in passing gun laws? news outlets or other areas where guns are advertised, should they be held liable for putting forward the advertisements to the public? host: that is josh in maryland. guest: thank you for the questions. any kind of legal liability or lawmakers or for media who run advertisements is highly unlikely. plcaa will not be the bar there. other core principles will be the main impediment to those lawsuits being successful. one thing on the donations front, certainly all of these are things folks should consider when they are thinking through issues of gun rights and gun regulations. one thing we know about the gun rights movement that has been successful at the state and national level enacting gun rights legislation is the nra, other gun rights lobbying organizations have been as effective with mobilizing voters as they have been with donating to particular politicians. it is as much the fact they are able to motivate and mobilize voters who are interested in these issues and are often single issue voters on the issue of gun rights more than the fact they are donating sums to particular politicians. host: has there ever been a conversation on capitol hill about changing plcaa itself? guest: there has been legislation introduced, although i do not think there has ever been a vote on repealing plcaa, but there has been legislation debated or proposed to repeal plcaa. i do not think any of those conversations have gone seriously enough to get those up for a vote. there are active conversations going on about repealing plcaa. host: our guest is the executive director for the duke center for firearms law. how did duke university get into this field of study? guest: duke has two law professors who are e