The Supreme Court just handed New York politicians a major victory in their long-running campaign to make life harder for America’s gun industry — and did it without saying a word.
In a move sure to frustrate Second Amendment advocates, the nation’s highest court declined to hear a challenge to New York’s controversial 2021 law that opens the door for lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and dealers when their products are later used in crimes.
That leaves in place a legal framework critics say effectively sidesteps federal protections that Congress enacted more than two decades ago to shield lawful gun businesses from being blamed for the criminal acts of others.
The challenge was brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, joined by some of the biggest names in the firearms world, including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer and Sturm, Ruger & Co. The industry coalition argued that New York’s statute undermines the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law designed to prevent gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from being dragged into costly civil litigation over crimes committed by third parties.
That federal law was enacted after a wave of lawsuits sought to hold firearms companies financially responsible for criminal misuse of guns they neither sold illegally nor used themselves. Supporters of the statute viewed it as a necessary safeguard against politically motivated litigation aimed at bankrupting the industry through the courts rather than defeating it through legislation.
Gun-rights advocates argue New York’s law is essentially an end-run around those protections.
“NSSF sincerely believes that those criminals who illegally misuse lawful products should be held responsible for the harms they cause when they commit their crimes,” National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman Mark Oliva said. He added, “Holding the firearm industry responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm is akin to holding Ford Motor Company responsible for damages from drunk-driving crimes.”
That analogy has become a rallying cry for gun-rights supporters, who contend that manufacturers of legal products should not be liable when someone else chooses to break the law. Critics of New York’s approach note that car companies generally are not blamed when intoxicated drivers cause crashes, nor are knife makers sued when criminals use knives in violent attacks.
But New York officials see things differently. Attorney General Letitia James has argued that federal law never granted the gun industry blanket immunity and that firearm companies can still face liability under certain circumstances involving the actions of third parties. State officials maintain that businesses operating in New York have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent illegal misuse of their products.
The law’s chief architect, Democratic State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, celebrated the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene. Myrie has long maintained that New York has both the authority and obligation to impose additional accountability measures on industries whose products affect public safety.
“New York has an obligation to protect the health and safety of every resident, and any industry—including members of the gun industry—impacting New Yorkers has to take reasonable steps to do the same,” Myrie said following the court’s decision.
Republican New York Reps. Claudia Tenney and Nick Langworthy had backed the industry challenge, warning that allowing states to chip away at federal protections could expose lawful firearm businesses to an endless stream of litigation.
For gun makers, Monday’s development doesn’t mean they’ve lost the broader legal war. But it does mean one of the nation’s most aggressive state-level efforts to target the firearms industry survives another day.
