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—a move that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is blasting as “outrageous.”
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’s Identification (FOID) card, according to CBS News.
But now, attention is turning to Smith & Wesson—manufacturer of the rifle allegedly used in the attack—as plaintiffs pursue a lawsuit based on the company’s marketing practices.
Second Amendment Foundation Pushes Back
“This is precisely the type of junk lawsuit that Congress sought to prevent with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Smith & 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.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added, “Allowing 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.”
A Familiar Legal Tactic Resurfaces
This lawsuit is not without precedent. More than two decades ago, anti-gun municipalities attempted similar lawsuits against gun makers—tactics 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.
Now, according to SAF, we’re witnessing a repeat of that playbook—with billionaire-backed gun control groups like Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety allegedly supporting the plaintiffs.
“The current argument is a recycled one,” Gottlieb explained. “They’re accusing Smith & Wesson of marketing firearms to minors, in violation of Illinois consumer laws. It’s absurd and clearly designed to bankrupt the company, not bring justice to the victims.”
Legal Implications for Gun Owners
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.
“This isn’t just about one company,” said Kraut. “It’s about whether manufacturers can be held responsible for the unlawful misuse of a legally sold product.”
The Bigger Picture
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—or shutting down entirely due to mounting legal expenses.
The fight, according to SAF, is far from over.
For more updates and legal advocacy resources, visit saf.org.
