NY Politician Introduces Bill to Criminalize Sale & Manufacture of Firearms

New York Flag NRA-ILA
NY State Senator Zellnor Myrie introduced a bill last week intended to criminalize the sale and manufacture of firearms. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- A politician in Brooklyn New York thinks he has come up with a brilliant solution to the crime wave currently sweeping through the Big Apple: Criminalize the sale and manufacture of firearms. New York City (among other urban areas controlled by anti-gun politicians) is facing a return to the bad old days of rising violent crime. It doesn’t take a sociologist or criminologist to see why.

Any reasonable person paying attention to these explosive trends could have predicted the deadly outcomes, as evidenced by the overwhelming demand for defensive firearms, particularly among first-time and non-traditional gun owners. But the politicians whose jurisdictions are descending into anarchy have a different explanation: you, the law-abiding citizen, and your guns.
That’s why New York State Sen. Zellnor Myrie (D-Brooklyn) introduced a bill last week intended to criminalize the sale and manufacture of firearms.

Specifically, the bill would amend New York State’s public nuisance law to allow the state to prosecute the “sale or manufacture of products” as an activity considered to illegally or unreasonably “create or maintain a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons.”

While the language doesn’t mention firearms specifically, Myrie made clear in comments to the New York Daily News that guns are exactly the “products” he has in mind. “Every illegal gun on the street was a legally purchased gun at one time,” he said. Myrie continued: “In the wake of a gun violence epidemic plaguing the city, state, and nation, we have a duty to hold all responsible parties accountable.”

Yet while the bill amends a criminal statute, Myrie made clear that what he really hopes to do is to create a work-around to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in order to empower gun control advocates to sue the American firearms industry into oblivion in civil court.

The Daily News article notes the impetus for the bill was a New York City lawsuit that sought to hold several firearms companies liable for creating a public nuisance because unaffiliated criminals were using their products to harm third parties. That theory, however, did not hold up court.

New York Times article on the lawsuit quotes none other than Michael Bloomberg – America’s biggest spending firearm prohibitionist – as characterizing the nine-year legal assault on firearm manufacturers as “one part of our strategy to fight against illegal guns.”

The PLCAA finally put an end to New York City’s attempt to drain the lifeblood from the firearms industry through litigation costs. Yet merely imposing those costs – even with a losing case – was a victory in itself for the anti-gun activists. Congress understood the existential threat these baseless suits posed to the American arms industry and enacted the PLCAA specifically so the suits could be disposed of as early in the proceedings as possible.

That is precisely why anti-gun activists are so focused on repealing the PLCAA that this goal has even made its way into the Democratic National Committee’s official platform. Meanwhile, the trial lawyers who comprise a significant part of that party’s base and donor class are salivating at the chance to reprise these suits, which pretend that violent criminals who misuse guns have no individual agency and that the true evildoers are legitimate makers and sellers of guns.

The PLCAA does not protect anyone who knowingly violates “a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product,” when “the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought … .” This narrow exception was meant to cover egregious violations of laws directed at firearm sales, such as deliberately falsifying firearm transfer records or selling a gun to someone who the seller knew or should have known was legally prohibited from receiving it.

Nevertheless, the game for anti-gun activists has been to try to shoehorn every questionable legal theory they can think of into this category.

As unlikely as this theory may be to prevail at trial, the mere continuation of these suits is enough to help drive some of America’s longest-lived gun makers into bankruptcy.
And so it goes.

Even if Myrie’s amendments are enacted, it’s highly doubtful a plaintiff could prove that a company making or selling guns in otherwise perfect compliance with federal and state firearms laws was still somehow unlawfully or unreasonably causing third parties to commit violent crime. If that were so, then there would be essentially no way to engage in firearm-related commerce without running afoul of the law.

But just the fact that the law had changed might embolden a court to prolong a lawsuit long enough to accomplish its real aim, which is to drive the sued company out of business or force it to operate on the plaintiff’s term … for example, by refusing to sell guns to the general public.

The takeaway for gun owners could not be clearer: Firearm prohibition activists intend to weaponize the legal system against the industry that sustains their rights.
And make no mistake, the same politically-motivated judges who once tried to abolish the Second Amendment’s protection for individual gun owners entirely would be only too happy to accommodate them.

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Honestly, I’m fine, in fact happy that New York is going to try this. If they want to lob up meatballs for the SCOTUS to rule on and create more pro-2A precident, I’m all for it.


Very great and educated leaders. What really is needed is state constitutional carry. For once let the good guy get rid of these rouge characters. Then you will have peace!

Last edited 1 year ago by JohnnyC

Perhaps someone could explain to me how NYS can summarily declare the manufacture and sale of a consumer product legal in all 50 states to suddenly not be legal in one of those 50 states. Anyone?


Well I’m gonna try this again. The last time I commented on the NRA, and was critical of WLP my post didn’t show up. # fascism
I’m thinking that maybe there should be prosecutions for breaking their oath of office, at least a very large fine, and thrown out of office.


How many DUI’s happen in NY. Thousands. Isn’t that against the law?


And DUI drivers are responsible for many more deaths than firearms. As are falls in the bathtubs, etc. You can’t cure stupid!


It’s interesting that Republican politicians aren’t writing bills to prevent this type of communistic behavior.


I am so glad I don’t live under NY communist rule. I’m not far away from it though in Oregone. Our governor would love to disarm us but that ain’t happening.


left off the last word………………….YET.


Are all leftist democrats mentally defective? It’s time to erase these treasonous vipers from political existence.
Anti-Constitution beliefs is reason #1.


The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government. Two U.S. supreme court decisions (DC vs Heller and MacDonald vs Chicago) have already settled this question and the politician in Brooklyn is wasting his time.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bob
uncle dudley

This is one of the idiots who changed the bail law in New York to let criminals right back out of jail after committing criminal acts and he probably wants to defund the police.
Since he is from Brooklyn is he buddies with AOC?

grim reaper

This sounds like the definition of what a politician is:

an activity considered to illegally or unreasonably “create or maintain a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons.”


So lawsuits should be justifiable against politicians, judges & lawyers ? Just as gun manufacturers. Since they release prisoners that commit crimes again. We’ll be able to sue auto companies for drunk drivers. The stupidity is large on this one. They really didn’t think it through.

Mystic Wolf

Well if that does not fly in the face if the US CONSTITUTION in every way, and to think these criminals actually take an oath to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION, then turn around and start ripping that very document to shreds. These pole cats need to be taken out to the wood shed and taught a lesson to two. They may be washed and have fine clothes on but they still stink th o all get out, once a stinky smelly pole cat always a sti nun Kyle smelly pole cat.


You better start teaching your children the CONSTITUTION its not being done in the schools !!


What needs to occur is those bringing these frivilous lawsuits need to be charged every single penny spent to defend them the second they loose or it is thrown out of court.


That would be nice, but here’s the problem: Our congress and state legislatures are run by lawyers. As long as this profession dominates the creation of the law, any threat to their livelihood, especially from tort reform, will be vigorously opposed. Compelling losers in lawsuits to compensate the winners, as well as the court, for the expense of litigation, is at the discretion of the judge. To the best of my knowledge, nearly every other country fines the losing plaintiff.

WI Patriot

And another idiot oozes to the forefront…