The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear gun manufacturers’ case against a New York State law allowing people to sue them for negligence if they don’t take certain steps to prevent trafficking, theft and misuse of firearms, effectively allowing the law to remain standing and lawsuits to flow.
The court’s decision comes after years of challenges to the landmark gun accountability legislation, which passed the state legislature in 2021. By legally requiring gun manufacturers to take steps to prevent people who shouldn’t have guns from having them, it opened up the possibility for people who had been shot or killed by a gun that had been sold by a manufacturer who hadn’t followed those rules to sue over negligence.
“The rejection of the gun industry’s appeal is real affirmation for survivors, for victims, for neighborhoods that have to deal with gun violence on a daily basis,” said state Sen. Zellnor Myrie (D-Brooklyn), who introduced the law.
Because the law had been the subject of a slew of legal challenges from gun manufacturers alleging it was unconstitutional, it wasn’t able to be an effective pathway for people to bring lawsuits against those who broke it, as courts would put their suits on hold as the case over whether or not the law itself could stand played out in appellate courts, Myrie said.
The gun industry had argued a federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability when guns are used unlawfully, absolved it from responsibility for misuse or mis-sale of its products up through New York’s Appellate Department, Second Division.
It faced a panel of judges who disagreed, citing a provision in it that allows states to pass stricter laws, but the law remained dulled as manufacturers continued to appeal the decision and the case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“There was a pause in the law’s ability to really have an impact, to hold bad actors accountable, and to allow for our communities to be safer with the gun industry taking reasonable steps to ensure that guns didn’t get into the wrong hands,” Myrie said.
He emphasized that the law had nothing to do with curbing Second Amendment rights and simply held guns to the same safety standard as other products.
“The gun industry tried to paint this law as some radical departure from the norm,” Myrie said. “But the truth is, it is not intended whatsoever to go after the legal possession of firearms; it is meant to put the gun industry in line with almost every other industry. It says that your ability to make money in a market is also accompanied by a responsibility to ensure that your products are safe.”
“If you are going to be in the business of selling what is inherently a dangerous product, then it makes sense to ensure that it is being done in the right way,” he added.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case has national impact: Roughly a dozen other states across the country have passed or are considering similar laws in recent years. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow New York’s law to stand effectively means that similar laws across the country can remain in place as well.
Myrie said he hopes the gun industry will take the law seriously now.
“This was born out of necessity, of me looking around in my community, having to attend too many funerals, having to show up to too many scenes where shooting has occurred, and having constituents confront me and say, What are you doing about this?’” Myrie said. “My hope is that the gun industry will now do some introspection, and take stock of where things stand legally, and proceed in a way that keeps communities safe.”