WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a New York law that sets out a legal pathway to hold gunmakers accountable for harm caused by their weapons.
Subscribe to read this story ad-free
Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.
The court’s decision not to intervene means the 2021 law remains in effect. It allows for various legal claims against gun manufacturers under state law, including alleged conduct that endangers the public health of New Yorkers.
The law, which was immediately challenged in court after being enacted, was written specifically to circumvent a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that created a liability shield for gunmakers.
It could still face future legal challenges.
The court’s conservative majority generally backs gun rights, and as recently as last year invoked the same federal law in throwing out a novel lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against gun manufacturers.
The legal challenge to the New York law was brought by various gunmakers, including Glock and Smith & Wesson, as well as the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The gunmakers’ lawyers say that the state statute seeks to exploit a loophole in the federal law that allows lawsuits when a defendant “knowingly violated” a law relating to the sale or marketing of a firearm and that violation directly caused harm to a plaintiff, namely in a shooting.
If the New York measure were allowed to stand, it would render the 2005 federal law meaningless, they argue.
A federal judge in New York ruled against the gunmakers, with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaching the same conclusion in a July 2025 ruling.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, urged the court not to take up the case, saying in court papers that the federal law “allows gun industry members to be held liable for the downstream acts of third parties in some circumstances.”
Read the full article here
27 Comments
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
Interesting update on Supreme Court turns away challenge to New York firearms liability law. Curious how the grades will trend next quarter.
If AISC keeps dropping, this becomes investable for me.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
If AISC keeps dropping, this becomes investable for me.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Production mix shifting toward USA might help margins if metals stay firm.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
I like the balance sheet here—less leverage than peers.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.