Latest news with #NationalShootingSportsFoundation
10-07-2025
- Business
Gun makers lose appeal of New York law that could make them liable for shootings
NEW YORK -- A New York state law holding gun manufacturers potentially liable when their weapons are used in deadly shootings was upheld Thursday by a federal appeals court. The ruling Thursday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan affirmed a decision by an Albany judge. A three-judge appeals panel said the 2021 New York state law was not unconstitutional or vague. The opinion written by Circuit Judge Eunice C. Lee said a lawsuit seeking to stop the law's implementation did not show that the law was 'unenforceable in all its applications.' The law requires the gun industry to create reasonable controls to prevent unlawful possession, use, marketing or sale of their products in New York and allows them to be sued for unlawful acts that create or contribute to threats to public health or safety. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association of firearms manufacturers that ships firearms into New York, had sued over the law, saying it was pre-empted by the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which blocks litigation that could destroy the firearms industry. In May 2022, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino threw out the lawsuit, rejecting arguments that the law's language did not adequately explain what was prohibited. She said the law closely tracked the language of New York's general public nuisance law, which has been 'good law since 1965.' Lawyers for the gun manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Eric Tirschwell, executive director of the nonprofit Everytown Law, praised the ruling. He said the law creates 'a new pathway for victims and their families to hold bad actors in the gun industry accountable for their role in fueling the epidemic of gun violence that is ravaging communities across the Empire State.' Everytown Law and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence were among gun violence protection groups that filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the new law 'simply does not create the free-for-all' that gun makers predicted. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs concurred in the ruling, despite some reservations. He wrote that New York had 'contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to 'gun industry members' and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors.' And he added: 'The intent of Congress when it closes a door is not for States to thus jimmy a window.' Jacobs, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, said he agrees with the other two judges on the panel that the law could be applied consistent with the federal law and the U.S. Constitution. But he also wrote that the New York gun law is 'nothing short of an attempt to end-run' the federal law, noting that then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo said when he signed it that it would 'right the wrong' done by the federal law. 'There is some legitimate reach to the law, which suffices for us to affirm the dismissal of this facial challenge. Just how limited that reach is must await future cases,' Jacobs said.
Associated Press
10-07-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Gun makers lose appeal of New York law that could make them liable for shootings
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York state law holding gun manufacturers potentially liable when their weapons are used in deadly shootings was upheld Thursday by a federal appeals court. The ruling Thursday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan affirmed a decision by an Albany judge. A three-judge appeals panel said the 2021 New York state law was not unconstitutional or vague. The opinion written by Circuit Judge Eunice C. Lee said a lawsuit seeking to stop the law's implementation did not show that the law was 'unenforceable in all its applications.' The law requires the gun industry to create reasonable controls to prevent unlawful possession, use, marketing or sale of their products in New York and allows them to be sued for unlawful acts that create or contribute to threats to public health or safety. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association of firearms manufacturers that ships firearms into New York, had sued over the law, saying it was pre-empted by the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which blocks litigation that could destroy the firearms industry. In May 2022, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino threw out the lawsuit, rejecting arguments that the law's language did not adequately explain what was prohibited. She said the law closely tracked the language of New York's general public nuisance law, which has been 'good law since 1965.' Lawyers for the gun manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Eric Tirschwell, executive director of the nonprofit Everytown Law, praised the ruling. He said the law creates 'a new pathway for victims and their families to hold bad actors in the gun industry accountable for their role in fueling the epidemic of gun violence that is ravaging communities across the Empire State.' Everytown Law and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence were among gun violence protection groups that filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the new law 'simply does not create the free-for-all' that gun makers predicted. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs concurred in the ruling, despite some reservations. He wrote that New York had 'contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to 'gun industry members' and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors.' And he added: 'The intent of Congress when it closes a door is not for States to thus jimmy a window.' Jacobs, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, said he agrees with the other two judges on the panel that the law could be applied consistent with the federal law and the U.S. Constitution. But he also wrote that the New York gun law is 'nothing short of an attempt to end-run' the federal law, noting that then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo said when he signed it that it would 'right the wrong' done by the federal law. 'There is some legitimate reach to the law, which suffices for us to affirm the dismissal of this facial challenge. Just how limited that reach is must await future cases,' Jacobs said.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Silencer Deregulation Plan Fails in the Senate
We may earn revenue from the products available on this page and participate in affiliate programs. Learn More › Early Friday morning the United States Committee on the Budget announced that Republican efforts to deregulate suppressors would not pass Senate budget rules. The provision in question, Section 70436, sought to deregulate 'gun silencers and easily concealable guns,' or short barreled shotguns and rifles, from the National Firearms Act. The current language of the Hearing Protection Act would eliminate the ATF application that requires fingerprints, a waiting period, and the $200 tax stamp for any suppressor purchase. The SHORT Act would have deregulated short-barreled rifles and shotguns so they could be purchased using the same standard background check process for other firearms. As this legislation percolated, two camps within the firearms industry emerged. One, backed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other industry players, thought it was risky to lump all these initiatives together within the massive budget reconciliation bill, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. Doing so risked not passing any wins for gun owners. The other camp, which included advocacy groups like the American Suppressor Association, took a no-compromise approach. Ultimately all the suppressor and short-barreled firearm provisions were thrown out by the Senate's non-partisan bureaucrat, who determined they did not pass the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule requires budget reconciliation bills, like this one, to remain focused on fiscal issues. In this case, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that deregulating suppressors is considered too policy-forward to be included in this bill. 'This is ultimately exactly what we expected to happen,' says Joe Kurtenbach, Silencer Central's senior manager of media and relationships. 'Our lobbying efforts weren't popular [in the entire 2A community] because we weren't in the no-compromise crowd. But we have a plan A and a plan B. We felt strongly that Plan A, where the HPA goes through — is a really good outcome for freedom and for the firearms community. But we felt much more confident in Plan B.' To be clear, 'Plan A' centered around eliminating the tax stamp and suppressor registration with the ATF. 'Plan B' focused on the tax stamp alone. Kurtenbach refers to this backup plan as a 'belt-and-suspenders' approach — if one method fails, you're not left with your pants around your ankles. 'The House — I think, wisely — put both sets of language into their bill. I think that gave gun owners the best chance of getting something out of it,' says Kurtenbach. 'If we can't beat both the tax stamp and regulation piece, can we at least reduce the financial burden for suppressor customers? … Would that pass the Byrd Rule? We hope it will if that gets reintroduced.' The Senate, however, went for the all-or-nothing approach advocated by the American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America, and other groups gathered under a 'No Compromise Alliance.' 'Let's not mince words – the Senate Parliamentarian got this wrong,' American Suppressor Association president and executive director said Knox Williams in a statement. 'Removing suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the NFA tax scheme directly impacts revenues and is unquestionably compliant with the rules of reconciliation. This seemingly politically motivated decision was undoubtedly influenced by fearmongering and disinformation by radical liberals and anti-gun activists.' Most Washington insiders agree, however, that this outcome was procedural, not political, and fully expected. While changing the amount a suppressor stamp costs generally falls within reconciliation requirements, the elimination of certain laws altogether (such as the National Firearms Act) are often considered too policy heavy to pass the so-called 'Byrd Bath.' Earlier this week, for instance, the same rule was applied to several provisions in the bill related to the sale of federal land. The parliamentarian ruled that Senator Mike Lee's attempt to sell millions of acres of federal land through the budget reconciliation process also violated budget rules. One D.C. source, who asked not to be named due to these heated disagreements within the 2A community, says the all-or-nothing approach of trying to pass the HPA in the Senate was a risky overreach. Senate Majority Leader John Thune does not plan to overrule the parliamentarian, which is technically possible but comes with a fresh set of political and policy risks. For example, it could set a precedent that would allow Democrats to ban certain magazines and AR-style rifles when they have the majority again. If Senators choose to leave the suppressor language in the bill, it will now be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Since there's currently a small Republican majority in the Senate (53 Republicans to 47 Democrats), it's unlikely that suppressor provision would ever pass the 60-vote threshold. One likely course of action, according to insiders, is that the Senate will simply adopt the HPA language from the House version of the bill. That would allow for a reduced suppressor tax stamp fee even if suppressors aren't deregulated. The $200 tax stamp has remained in place since the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was intended to make suppressor ownership prohibitively expensive. Alternatively, new language could potentially be added to the Senate version of the bill and reviewed later in the full conference bill, when the House and the Senate have to come together. 'There's still a lot of game left to be played,' says Kurtenbach. 'What's nice is the House language has already passed one body of legislature, so [using the House version of the HPA in the Senate] might be the easiest substitution to make.' On the whole, Kurtenbach is optimistic about future changes to suppressor regulation for gun owners. 'Silencer Central remains committed to the Hearing Protection Act and the full deregulation of suppressors, both in the registration and the tax stamp. We did not adopt the absolute no-compromise approach that some of our colleagues in the industry did, but that is the goal we're working toward and we will take a victory of any kind. … So if that's HPA and we can get it passed, perfect. But if, for the time being, it's a reduction in the financial burden, we're for that too. We just want the win for our customers.' In May, Silencer Central was accused of lobbying against the HPA by several YouTube creators, who circulated partial screenshots of a $50,000 lobbying statement to 'develop and support suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation.' 'Conveniently, most of the screenshots cut out the date,' says Kurtenbach. 'The date for that lobbying statement was Q2 2024. And what it had to do with was a 2023-24 effort to get the [existing] suppressor tax stamp money pushed toward … conservation efforts.' At the time, Biden was in office, there was no active push to legalize the HPA, and Silencer Central figured that if gun owners had to pay tax stamp money, that money might as well support legislative efforts to redirect suppressor tax-stamp fees into a Pittman-Robertson-style conservation fund. 'If we have to pay a tax just like firearms and ammunition, let's at least dictate where it goes,' Kurtenbach says of the company's support for at the time for the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. 'So that lobbying statement ties directly to conservation — not the conservation of the tax stamp.' Still, critics accused Silencer Central of potentially profiting from the continued regulation of suppressors. But as Kurtenbach points out and as CEO Brandon Maddox explained in a May 18 interview on Gun Talk Radio, the South-Dakota-based company does not charge customers for ATF paperwork, setting up a gun trust, or a processing fee. Silencer Central says it makes more silencers than any other company, and that the company stands to make significantly more money if the HPA passes (since it's likely that gun owners would buy many more suppressors) than if suppressors remain highly regulated. Andrew McKean contributed reporting.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Warner, Kaine condemn GOP tax bill over gun silencer rollback
U.S. Sens. Mark Warner (left) and Tim Kaine in February 2024. (Official U.S. Senate photo by Rosa Pineda) Virginia's Democratic U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, D-Va., are slamming the Republican spending plan moving through Congress, warning that tucked among its billion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthy is a dangerous gift to the gun industry that rolls back long-standing safety rules for firearm silencers. In a blistering joint statement Thursday, the senators said the proposal would weaken gun laws that have been in place since 1934 by eliminating registration and ownership requirements for silencers, also known as suppressors — devices that muffle the sound of gunfire and make it harder for law enforcement to respond to active shooter situations. 'The Republican tax plan being pushed through Congress not only cuts critical services Virginians rely on in order to give huge tax breaks to billionaires,' Warner and Kaine said, 'but it also makes our communities less safe by weakening gun safety measures on silencers.' Though the change occupies just 12 lines in the nearly 400-page bill, the senators say its implications are severe. If passed, the bill would repeal the $200 tax on silencer purchases, wipe out federal registration requirements for the devices and deliver millions in savings to gun manufacturers. The suppressor tax, part of the National Firearms Act of 1934, has been a core part of federal gun law for nearly a century. The two lawmakers pointed to the 2019 Virginia Beach mass shooting — where a gunman used a silencer to kill 12 people — as a grim example of what can happen when these devices are used. 'Part of the reason that these registration and ownership requirements exist is because silencers, like the one that was used in the Virginia Beach mass shooting, make it harder for law enforcement to locate and respond to an active shooter,' they said. Silencers are designed to reduce the sound, flash and recoil of a firearm, but their public safety risks have made them a focal point of debate. Law enforcement groups have long supported keeping suppressors regulated, arguing that they undermine gunshot detection technology and make it far more difficult to locate shooters in an emergency. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 4.5 million suppressors were registered with the federal government by the end of 2024, including 113,046 in Virginia. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates repealing the tax would cost the federal government $1.4 billion over ten years. But for gun rights groups, even this deregulation isn't enough. The American Firearms Association called the move 'nothing more than a crumb dropped from the King's table,' and its Vice President Patrick Parsons said Republicans should go further by eliminating regulations on short-barrel rifles, abolishing the ATF and repealing the National Firearms Act altogether. Warner and Kaine argue the silencer provision is just one piece of a broader bill they say would do massive harm to working families while lavishing the ultra-rich. They warn that the legislation would strip health insurance from more than 262,000 Virginians, cut food assistance to over 204,000 people, raise energy costs across the state, and threaten more than 20,000 Virginia jobs. They also noted the bill would eliminate a program that allows Americans to file taxes for free, raise taxes on minimum-wage workers, and blow a $3.8 trillion hole in the federal deficit — all while handing the top 0.1% of earners an average tax cut of $188,000. 'Americans deserve to feel safe in their communities,' the senators said, vowing to push back against 'this disastrous bill' when it reaches the Senate floor. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
