\n<\/p>\n
In a controversial legal decision that could have major implications for the firearms industry, an Illinois judge has ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit against Smith & Wesson may proceed\u2014a move that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is blasting as \u201coutrageous.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The case stems from the tragic events of July 4, 2022, when Robert Crimo III opened fire during a parade in Highland Park, Illinois, killing seven and injuring dozens more. Crimo has since pleaded guilty and is expected to spend the rest of his life behind bars. His father also pleaded guilty to seven felony counts of reckless conduct for helping his son obtain a Firearm Owner\u2019s Identification (FOID) card, according to CBS News<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n But now, attention is turning to Smith & Wesson\u2014manufacturer of the rifle allegedly used in the attack\u2014as plaintiffs pursue a lawsuit based on the company\u2019s marketing practices.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is precisely the type of junk lawsuit that Congress sought to prevent with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),\u201d said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. \u201cSmith & Wesson is no more responsible for the Highland Park shooting than a car manufacturer would be for a drunk driver who kills someone in a crash.\u201d<\/p>\n SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added, \u201cAllowing this case to proceed opens the floodgates for lawfare against firearm manufacturers, aiming not for justice but to destroy the firearms industry through endless litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n This lawsuit is not without precedent. More than two decades ago, anti-gun municipalities attempted similar lawsuits against gun makers\u2014tactics that ultimately led to the passage of the PLCAA in 2005. Those suits failed to hold gun companies liable for the actions of criminals but did succeed in racking up massive legal fees that drained resources from manufacturers and retailers alike.<\/p>\n Now, according to SAF, we\u2019re witnessing a repeat of that playbook\u2014with billionaire-backed gun control groups like Michael Bloomberg\u2019s Everytown for Gun Safety<\/strong> allegedly supporting the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n \u201cThe current argument is a recycled one,\u201d Gottlieb explained. \u201cThey\u2019re accusing Smith & Wesson of marketing firearms to minors, in violation of Illinois consumer laws. It\u2019s absurd and clearly designed to bankrupt the company, not bring justice to the victims.\u201d<\/p>\n If the case continues and results in a loss for Smith & Wesson, it could set a dangerous precedent for gun manufacturers nationwide. According to SAF, this could not only chill the lawful marketing and sale of firearms but also threaten Second Amendment rights by proxy.<\/p>\n \u201cThis isn\u2019t just about one company,\u201d said Kraut. \u201cIt\u2019s about whether manufacturers can be held responsible for the unlawful misuse of a legally sold product.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics argue that this ruling is part of a broader campaign to restrict gun rights through indirect legal pressure. SAF warns that if courts continue to entertain these types of lawsuits, it may not be long before manufacturers begin pulling out of high-risk states\u2014or shutting down entirely due to mounting legal expenses.<\/p>\n The fight, according to SAF, is far from over.<\/p>\n For more updates and legal advocacy resources, visit saf.org<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nSecond Amendment Foundation Pushes Back<\/h3>\n
A Familiar Legal Tactic Resurfaces<\/h3>\n
Legal Implications for Gun Owners<\/h3>\n
The Bigger Picture<\/h3>\n