My Right To Carry

firearms industry

  • NSSF Backs Cornyn’s SHOT Act to Reinforce PLCAA and Curb Public Nuisance Lawsuits

    NSSF Backs Cornyn’s SHOT Act to Reinforce PLCAA and Curb Public Nuisance Lawsuits

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    NSSF, which represents the firearm industry as a trade association, voiced support for new federal legislation introduced in Washington, D.C., saying it would help stop a wave of public nuisance lawsuits aimed at lawful businesses in the gun sector.

    The proposal is S. 4775, titled the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts (SHOT) Act. NSSF says the bill is designed to reinforce the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law intended to limit improper litigation that tries to hold manufacturers and sellers responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

    According to NSSF, the bill was introduced by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas. The organization argues that courts have allowed certain public nuisance claims to proceed in ways that invite costly and sprawling lawsuits, even when the businesses being sued have complied with existing laws and regulations.

    From a limited-government perspective, NSSF frames these cases as an attempt to achieve policy outcomes through the courts rather than through elected legislatures. The association says the SHOT Act would close avenues for what it describes as meritless suits that can function as de facto regulation through litigation and impose major legal burdens regardless of the final outcome.

    NSSF’s statement casts the measure as a straightforward effort to strengthen PLCAA’s protections so that lawful commerce in firearms is not targeted by litigation theories that treat legally made and legally sold products as a public nuisance. The organization is urging attention to the bill’s goal of preventing such lawsuits from moving forward.

  • Brady Sues DOJ and ATF to Revive Public “Name-and-Shame” Effort

    Brady Sues DOJ and ATF to Revive Public “Name-and-Shame” Effort

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Brady: United Against Gun Violence has taken legal action aimed at pressuring the federal government to restart a public-facing “name-and-shame” approach that it says should be supported by official agencies. The group’s lawsuit targets the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, after the organization lost what it viewed as federal backing for the campaign.

    At the center of the dispute is Brady’s effort to publicly spotlight certain federally licensed firearms businesses. According to the account of the case, Brady wants the DOJ and ATF to provide information in a way that would enable continued public call-outs of specific industry participants, even though the agencies are constrained by federal legal requirements governing what can and cannot be disclosed.

    The legal complaint, as described, seeks to compel the agencies to act in ways critics argue would conflict with federal law. Those critics maintain that the requested disclosures are not simply a policy choice, but an attempt to force government offices into releasing material that statutes restrict, raising concerns about whether the suit is effectively asking the agencies to disregard existing rules.

    Beyond the legal questions, opponents of the lawsuit argue that expanding disclosures could create practical risks for public safety. They contend that exposing certain law-enforcement-sensitive details or operationally relevant information could endanger officers and ongoing work, and that government should not be pushed into making releases that could be exploited or that could compromise safety.

    From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the lawsuit is seen as an effort to use government power to amplify political pressure rather than to improve public safety through lawful, transparent processes. Critics argue that policy fights should not be waged by trying to force federal agencies into legally questionable actions, especially when those actions could create unintended consequences for law enforcement and the public.

  • Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Gary’s Bid to Revive 26-Year Lawsuit Against Gun Makers, NSSF Says

    Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Gary’s Bid to Revive 26-Year Lawsuit Against Gun Makers, NSSF Says

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to take up a request from the City of Gary that would have shifted jurisdiction and prolonged a lawsuit the city has pursued for more than two decades. The action effectively blocks an attempt to keep a 26-year-old case moving forward against firearm manufacturers.

    NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, responded from Washington, D.C., praising the court’s decision. The trade association said the ruling reflects adherence to the rule of law and prevents continued litigation aimed at expanding liability beyond those who commit crimes.

    At the center of the dispute is Gary’s long-running effort to hold gun manufacturers responsible for criminal misuse of firearms by third parties. The case sought to place legal blame on companies for acts carried out by individuals, rather than on the perpetrators themselves.

    According to NSSF, Gary filed a petition to transfer jurisdiction in an effort to extend the litigation. The Indiana Supreme Court denied that petition, cutting off a pathway the city was using to keep the lawsuit alive.

    NSSF characterized the suit as frivolous and argued that allowing it to continue would encourage politically driven litigation designed to punish lawful commerce through the courts. The group framed the court’s decision as an important check on “lawfare” tactics that, in its view, attempt to achieve policy outcomes by targeting manufacturers instead of addressing criminal behavior directly.