Starting with legislation signed by New York then-Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2022, eleven states have enacted "Firearms Industry Responsibility Acts." These statutes hold firearms retailers and manufacturers liable under tort law for any action deemed not "reasonable." The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry's trade association, challenged the statutes, arguing they are void for vagueness. However, the Second Circuit Court disagreed, noting that "reasonable" is a common legal standard used in many contexts, such as a grocery store's duty to promptly clean spills to prevent customer injuries.

The question of what constitutes "reasonable" gun control was explored in a new working paper from the University of Wyoming's Firearms Research Center. Del Schlangen, a recent graduate of Denver University's Sturm College of Law and intern at the Center, investigated how gun control groups use the term "reasonable." His findings, published in the monograph Use of 'Reasonable' in Gun Control Advocacy (Firearms Research Center, Working Paper No. 2026-8), reveal that all lesser forms of gun control are also labeled "reasonable" by these groups. This broad and flexible use means that "reasonable" lacks a fixed and ascertainable standard in the context of gun control advocacy.

The paper highlights that while "reasonable" duties are well-defined in other legal areas, such as retail safety, gun control advocates apply the term to justify a wide range of regulations, including prohibitions. This approach contrasts with other regulatory contexts where reasonable duties do not extend to extreme measures, such as controlling customers' food choices.

The investigation underscores ongoing debates about the scope and clarity of gun control laws and the legal standards applied to firearms industry responsibilities.

Sources