>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Leading the charge against it is Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who spearheaded a multi-state effort this week by filing amicus briefs in three separate cases. Two of those cases involve lawsuits brought by the cities of Buffalo and Rochester, while a third directly challenges James’ office in National Shooting Sports Foundation v. James.
Despite being separate filings, all three cases revolve around the same legal strategy.
New York’s law attempts to classify gun manufacturers and sellers as responsible for crimes committed using firearms that were legally produced and legally sold. Critics argue this is a backdoor effort to impose liability where federal law explicitly forbids it.
Knudsen didn’t hold back when describing what’s at stake.
“This is trying to kill the firearms manufacturing industry in this country one lawsuit at a time,” he told Fox News Digital.
That warning points to a broader concern. Since 2005, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has shielded gun makers from lawsuits blaming them for criminal misuse of their products. Congress enacted that law after a wave of coordinated litigation in the 1990s aimed at bankrupting firearm companies through “public nuisance” claims.
At the time, the National Rifle Association described the legislation as one of the most significant victories for gun rights in decades.
New York’s law, however, appears designed to work around that federal protection.
And so far, it has found support in the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the law last year, setting the stage for a larger constitutional battle.
That decision prompted attorneys general from across the country to take the issue to the Supreme Court, arguing that the implications stretch far beyond New York.
Knudsen emphasized that point clearly.
“These cases go far beyond New York,” he said. “This is not just a New York thing by any stretch of the imagination. … It affects all of us.”
The concern is straightforward: if New York’s legal theory stands, other states could replicate the model.
States like California, Illinois, and New Jersey could adopt similar laws, creating new liability standards that effectively nullify federal protections. In that scenario, the PLCAA would become meaningless, as state officials could simply draft laws to bypass it entirely.
Meanwhile, Letitia James remains a central and controversial figure in the broader political landscape. Known for her legal battles against Donald Trump, she has faced scrutiny of her own, including past legal challenges and ongoing political pressure.
Critics argue that her approach reflects activism rather than adherence to established federal law.
Knudsen made that accusation explicit.
“This is an attorney general who should know better,” he said. “Instead, she wants to be an activist. She wants to blame what I would say is probably the most legally regulated industry in America for the poor policies that she’s got going on in her own state.”
The lawsuits from Buffalo and Rochester take a similar position, claiming gun manufacturers failed to implement adequate safeguards to prevent criminal misuse. They are seeking damages for violence carried out with firearms that were legally sold and complied with all existing federal regulations.
Opponents say that argument defies basic legal logic.
In fact, the Supreme Court addressed a similar issue just last year. In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the justices unanimously rejected a $10 billion lawsuit brought by Mexico against American gun manufacturers.
Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan made it clear that such claims fall squarely within the type of litigation Congress intended to block when it passed the PLCAA. The ruling reinforced that courts are not meant to be used as tools to punish lawful manufacturers for the actions of criminals.
However, that decision did not directly address state-level laws crafted to bypass federal protections.
That legal gray area is exactly where New York’s strategy operates—and why opponents believe the Supreme Court may soon have to intervene again.
Despite the Court’s unanimous guidance, New York officials are continuing to press forward.
For critics, this is no longer just a legal debate—it’s a high-stakes battle over constitutional rights.
With 24 states now urging the Supreme Court to act, the question is whether the justices will once again step in to draw a clear line—or allow a patchwork of state laws to redefine the limits of the Second Amendment.
Either way, the outcome could reshape the legal landscape for gun rights across the country.
