In Boston, the state legislature is once again marching down a familiar path: Responding to gun violence by expanding liability and regulation—this time by holding industry members of the firearms supply chain responsible for crimes committed with legally manufactured firearms. While the proposed bill may sound like a bold crime-prevention measure, what it really represents is a slippery slope away from constitutional protections that law-abiding citizens and businesses rely on.
Presumption of innocence and fair treatment matters
In our justice system, we respect the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that liability should be based on one’s own actions, not the criminal misuse of a lawfully manufactured product. Imposing civil liability on the firearms industry broadly because a weapon they produced was misused is akin to holding automobile manufacturers liable for drunk drivers. It penalizes lawful commerce and ultimately discourages business activity, innovation, and responsible ownership.
Law-abiding gun owners get trampled in the crossfire
When legislation places extraordinary burdens on manufacturers and distributors, the downstream effect is predictable: fewer options, higher costs, diminished product availability—and increased risk that law-abiding citizens will be left behind while criminals, by definition, won’t comply. The industry, acting lawfully, becomes the target rather than the criminals themselves. That’s backwards.
Rights are not conditional on perfect legislative optics
The Second Amendment is not a contingent or negotiable right based on prevailing political winds. The right to keep and bear arms, and the commercial ecosystem which supports it, deserve respect—not punitive legislation designed to chip away at them through liability. If a law punishes lawful actors to make good on violent behavior done by criminals, then it fundamentally undermines individual responsibility and constitutional safeguards.
Focus on crime, not commerce
If Massachusetts truly wishes to reduce gun violence, it must direct attention to the root cause: Making sure criminals face consequences, not creating new laws that burden legitimate industry and infringe on legitimate ownership. Regulation isn’t inherently bad—but regulation must be smart, targeted, and not a stand-in for enforcement failure.
Regulatory overreach threatens industry viability and rights alike
The commercial firearms and ammunition industry is a significant part of the U.S. economy. In 2024, the industry’s total economic impact was estimated at approximately $91.7 billion, up from about $19.1 billion in 2008—an increase of 379 percent—employing nearly 383,000 full-time equivalent jobs. When the state signals to manufacturers/distributors: “We will hold you liable when your product is misused in a crime,” it invites a chilling effect. Some companies may seek to withdraw from the state altogether; others may stop innovating or reduce engagement in Massachusetts. And in the end, citizens might find themselves with fewer high-quality, lawful options while the black market continues business as usual. That doesn’t help the communities the legislation claims to protect.
Federal law already shields industry from lawsuits brought on the basis of misuse
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, prohibits civil actions against firearms manufacturers and dealers for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products by others. If Massachusetts opens the door to broad civil suits along the lines being proposed, it may be treading into territory previously blocked or restricted by federal law and may expose the state to costly litigation or industry withdrawal.
Real-world diversion and enforcement remain the priority
Criminal misuse of firearms is a serious problem—but diverting emphasis to hold lawful commerce broadly liable risks missing the point. Law-abiding manufacturers and distributors are not the source of the problem; they comply with licensing and regulation. The regulatory burden should not fall on the compliant majority while the illicit minority remains unscathed.
A better approach: Targeted enforcement + preserving rights
Massachusetts can chart a smarter path: Uphold and respect lawful commerce—while resisting sweeping liability schemes that punish a legal industry and risk the rights of law-abiding citizens.
In short, Massachusetts lawmakers are proposing a measure that, in effect, punishes legal commerce and legal rights in order to appear tough on gun violence. It conflates criminal misuse with lawful manufacture, thereby threatening the rights of law-abiding Americans while failing to effectively address the criminals themselves.
The right path is not to punish industries that obey the law—it is to crack down on those who break the law, support the rights of responsible gun owners, and preserve the constitutional protections and economic vitality that go hand-in-hand with lawful commerce. The Second Amendment—and the ecosystem around it—deserves better.
Join the Proud Boys: If you’re a man, agree with our 12 tenets, and want to apply to be a Proud Boy, apply now. Your race and nationality are unimportant.
Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.
