Highland Park Lawsuit Points To Serious Post-Bruen Threat

Second Amendment Courts Judges Strict Scrutiny
Highland Park Lawsuit Points To Serious Post-Bruen Threat

Highland Park, IL/United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One of the reasons that Second Amendment supporters needed a post-Bruen strategy became evident with the news that victims of the Highland Park shooting have filed suit against Smith and Wesson, aiming at the M&P 15 rifle the shooter misused in the horrific act.

Aiding the suit is Brady United, which coordinated the lawsuits from big cities and some states in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So, Second Amendment supporters can bet the mortgage, utility, and cable payments that these suits aren’t about addressing real issues, but coercing gun manufacturers into agreeing to settlements with provisions that would never pass constitutional muster if passed into law. It goes without saying that the shooter is the only person responsible for that horrific act, and said shooter should be the one who pays.

Making this threat even worse are the actions of Kirkland and Ellis in the wake of the Bruen decision, which points to a long-term threat that has to be addressed as well: Ensuring a new generation of lawyers to take Second Amendment cases can rise up to the level of Paul Clement. As of now, it is a safe bet that if these actions go unchecked, many conservative lawyers may be either unable – or unwilling – to take a Second Amendment case due to the fear of repercussions.

Our enemies weren’t stupid. They know they are losing the arguments in a straight-up fight, even when they have major advantages in the mainstream media. So, their next-best option is to find ways to make sure we can’t even take the field, whether through campaign-reform schemes or by getting businesses to go along with what is, for all intents and purposes, a form of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction regime that is aimed at Israel.

Second Amendment supporters will need to work to beat back this assault on our rights because the stakes are quite high. With NYSRPA v. Bruen, Caetano v. Massachusetts, and Heller v. D.C., we have gone a long way towards securing our rights on the constitutional front, but the legal front is not the only one.

Between settlements and threats of legal action, we could still lose our rights if no company wants to make a modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long gun for fear of being drowned in a sea of litigation, or if banks and credit card companies decide to financially deplatform the Second Amendment.

Obviously, part of the answer is to strengthen the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to close off these suits. But the other part is going to be a long-term effort to deter businesses from engaging in corporate gun control. Defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels is important, but it also has to be defeated in corporate suites.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s not about the victims or the crime committed, it’s about THE MONEY !


all slap lawsuits are about the money , if judges followed the law these would be thrown out without an answer from whomever they are attacking, but that would be less traffic through the courts ,less need of judges less legal jobs…..god forbid a world with less lawyers what would we do


I submit that the money is just a side show. The ultimate goal is, as it has always been, the complete disarmament of the civilian population, without which the Left cannot create the totalitarian dictatorship toward which they have been working for well more than half a century now.

Henry Bowman

Tyranny by any other name is still the same.


there is always someone that wants to tell you what to do ,and things have to be their way ,that is why I carry ,I can say no they get crazy they can meet god


Remember these words? They dedicate their lives
To running all of his.
He tries to please them all –
This bitter man he is.

Throughout his life the same –
He’s battled constantly.
This fight he cannot win –
A tired man they see no longer cares.

Except I DO care and will fight to my dying breath anyone who tries to take away my self defense ability.

Henry Bowman

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. But the armed citizen is the sheepdog who gets to veto that vote.


Smith & Wesson will go the way Remington did if this insanity is aloud to continue . Guess it’s time to take down a automobile manufacturer then also . Darrel Brooks used a automobile to kill women and children on Christmas . The automobile manufacturer must be held accountable for Darrels actions due to the fact he used it to commit a crime just like the Highland park shooter used the MP15 .


that would be a good start attack them the way they attack us m but all the gun manufactures need to stop selling to government , no parts no guns no ammo


Excellent idea. Just like Barrett did with California by refusing to deal with that psychopath run state.


Sounds like a plan but the symbiotic relationship between government and business is a double-edged sword. Most government purchases are conducted under binding contract with specific companies, at specific pricing, for specified items and for specific time frames. The manufacturers are obligated to fulfill these contracts or pay often severe penalties. These contracts are the “bread-and-butter” of the awarded companies; subsequent civilian sales are the “jam-and-honey”. If U.S. manufacturers stopped contracting with government agencies wouldn’t USA made firearms, parts and ammo become too expensive for the average patriot, eventually becoming non-existent? Manufacturers would have to increase prices dramatically trying to… Read more »


that is a line of thought ,have not heard of government buying ts12s or for that matter tarus or any other inexpensive guns so that reasoning is out the window..ammo prices would go down as less competition for supplies , if they stopped building what they cant sell to civilians ,prices on 44 magnums would go down, there would be more effort in designs that mitigate recoil. and you never find government buying boutique guns those prices stay the same…desert eagle is the same real price as when the came out in 1984 value of money has gone down


the other benefit is gun makers would band together,to stop attacks on the industry rather than hiding


they are loosing in court so they are attacking in a different court ,one where progressive judges are the rule, I am betting epa will start slap suits against people doing things they dont like ,government does not follow rules laid out for them now, dont expect them to start without a big fight


losing, not loosing.


cant tell you how many times i catch double ofr tripple on words, no tactile with the fingers and i dont proof as much as i should

Henry Bowman

I feel ya, bro. I have neuropathy in my support hand so I find myself misspelling on my keyboard more often. So I compensate by going a little slower and then a quick proofread before I hit ‘enter’.


Between settlements and threats of legal action, we could still lose our rights if no company wants to make a modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long gun for fear of being drowned in a sea of litigation, or if banks and credit card companies decide to financially deplatform the Second Amendment.
Not in my lifetime. You can give your right up if you want.


The only way you can “lose rights” is if you are dead. Anything else is an INFRINGEMENT on those rights. My rights don’t come from a piece of paper or what some “judge” or politician claims. They can KMA.


take as many of the criminals as you can


Did FORD get sued for the Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack?

Could FORD have been held responsible, and be forced to pay damages?

Didn’t FORD kill more people and injure more people at Waukesha?

FORD was outright slaughtering children in Waukesha.

Doesn’t it sound ridiculous laying blame for the slaughter on FORD?

Yeah, an M&P15 didn’t jump up and kill anyone.

Those who are protected by guns, tell us “guns are only designed to kill, so we need to ban them”, because they don’t want US protected by guns.