The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a New York law that sets out a legal pathway to hold gunmakers accountable for harm caused by their weapons.
The court’s decision not to intervene means the 2021 law remains in effect. It allows for various legal claims against gun manufacturers under state law, including alleged conduct that endangers the public health of New Yorkers.
The law, which was immediately challenged in court after being enacted, was written specifically to circumvent a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that created a liability shield for gunmakers.
How about including people who enabled shooters access to weapons into the responsibility? The private or commercial seller, the person who lent a weapon, the person who left a weapon unsecured in a place to be taken or stolen…
Something something Second Amendment something something Gun’s Rights.
But yeah. I still say the best approach is to actually let Responsible Gun Owners ™ have their guns. Hell, give them back machine guns for all I care.
But if a gun is used in a crime?
- Who owns the firearm? How did the gun get out of their possession? Stolen but not noticed/reported? First off, they lose their firearms privileges for at least a decade. But also, massive financial penalties (percentage of wealth so that we aren’t discriminating since Gun Nuts totally care about inner city youths when you talk about taxes). No proper safe? All of the above AND jail time. And…
- Who sold that person the firearm? Did they perform their due diligence in terms of both a background check AND documented evidence of a proper gun safe and all required licensing for how the firearm was going to be used? Nope? Massive financial penalty AND a three strike rule. Three strikes and they are no longer allowed to sell or own firearms.
- And who sold that gun shop the firearm? That’s right. Colt and PSA and the like all that the same rules applied to them. Were they not doing their due diligence to make sure Herman’s Gun Shop was doing THEIR due diligence?
Let the Responsible Gun Owners ™ have their gats. Just make sure those who can’t be responsible, don’t.
Perfection is the enemy of good, and this is a great example.
Your point makes perfect sense, but depends I after the fact logic. The folks that want regulation on guns tend toward preventative measures and as a result seem to neglect alternative answers, meaning if the law doesn’t prevent gun violence to begin with its not getting passed.
Ah well, you convinced me. Let’s ban all privately owned firearms instead. Thanks for your support
Ain’t trying to convince shit. I’m complaining about the shitty american political process.
Im allowed to complain and not have an answer. You got the means to make your idea work? No? Well then welcome to the boat, asshole.
I hope this grows to include munitions manufacturers.
That would be stupid! To the same degree, let’s hold auto manufacturers liable for anyone driving drunk, or driving aggressively on the highway. Let’s hold cutlery companies liable for anyone who gets stabbed by a butcher’s knife.
The liability NEEDS to fall on the retailers who are the ones supposedly doing the background checks, and shouldn’t sell for possible straw purchases. Or, better yet, punish those criminals who commit the crimes themselves for misuse. Maybe hold the ones accountable who bought and gave to the criminals (straw purchase), holding them just as liable, since it’s their firearm used in said crime.
Guns aren’t solely for killing. While they’re certainly capable, a vast majority are sold for hunting, sport & competition, hobbyists, or collectors.
Maybe.
Maybe if we had an honest discussion about the data driven ways to fix a problem that only exists in the US. Sadly that’s not been the case, so now we’re left with only doing what is legally possible.
This is a legal way to pursue and will now be the standard.
Maybe they should have compromised when the option was available.
Well that’s the issue right there. There are no open discussions about anything. No debates. No convincing anyone of right vs wrong vs figuring out the best course of action. Politicians very unfamiliar with the subject matter are making these decisions instead of group discussions or allowing the public to contribute ideas to help… You know, the public who has to live in these areas with the crime…
The public has input through the vote.
My very unpopular opinion is that there should be zero state or city gun laws, they create accidental criminals and create business instability. I’m uncomfortable attaching a name to a gun purchase guns are a private purchase that don’t require government involvement. If you absolutely have to have a background check once, and updated every 5-10 years, not at purchase of every gun.
I don’t think concealed carry should be a thing, and I don’t think I should have to notify LEOs of any gun in my possession especially for a traffic stop its none of their business.
I’m uncomfortable with automatic weapons requiring government apprival, I’m cool with a tax that makes them expensive but again my private property is none of the governments business.
While I agree with several points, especially the background checks portion, full auto wasn’t a thing when the Constitution and amendments were made. I would probably prefer a special license over a tax, sort of like a FFL would have, so that or shows either training or special acceptance is allowed to that owner. The taxes would just creep up like they always do, and a license could have a cost to it, but would be more affordable.
I don’t know why you would like all those things and not like concealed carry. What about open/constitutional carry?
I dislike concealed carry but cause I distrust most people especially those that carry concealed, basically I want to know who is a potential threat, bullets flying two ways is very diffent that a sport shooting range
Yeah, I can understand that. I would say most threats aren’t going to be completely hidden though, and I raise my kids on “always be aware of your surroundings” because you never know if a fight is going to break out, someone raises their voice in public for an unknown reason, or a gang member runs into someone from the other side and it gets heated. No, we don’t live in a terrible area, but a lot of stuff goes on places you least expect it, too.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a New York law that sets out a legal pathway to hold gunmakers accountable for harm caused by their weapons.
The court’s decision not to intervene means the 2021 law remains in effect. It allows for various legal claims against gun manufacturers under state law, including alleged conduct that endangers the public health of New Yorkers.
The law, which was immediately challenged in court after being enacted, was written specifically to circumvent a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that created a liability shield for gunmakers.
It could still face future legal challenges.
The court’s conservative majority generally backs gun rights, and as recently as last year invoked the same federal law in throwing out a novel lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against gun manufacturers.
The legal challenge to the New York law was brought by various gunmakers, including Glock and Smith & Wesson, as well as the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The gunmakers’ lawyers say that the state statute seeks to exploit a loophole in the federal law that allows lawsuits when a defendant “knowingly violated” a law relating to the sale or marketing of a firearm and that violation directly caused harm to a plaintiff, namely in a shooting.
If the New York measure were allowed to stand, it would render the 2005 federal law meaningless, they argue.
A federal judge in New York ruled against the gunmakers, with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaching the same conclusion in a July 2025 ruling.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, urged the court not to take up the case, saying in court papers that the federal law “allows gun industry members to be held liable for the downstream acts of third parties in some circumstances.”
