Today, the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in Daniel Defense, LLC v. Lowy. The case asks whether firearm manufacturers can be sued in federal court for a third party's crime based on advertisements that use military, law-enforcement, and readiness themes.

The plaintiffs seek to hold the manufacturers responsible for a shooting allegedly influenced by that advertising—even though the plaintiffs do not allege that the shooter saw the particular posts they challenge. The district court dismissed the claims, but the Fourth Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding that Article III standing was satisfied by allegations that the shooter was "exposed to and influenced by" the advertising.

Our brief argues that this theory mistakes ordinary firearms advertising for the cause of someone else's crime. As the brief shows, from colonial newspaper notices through nineteenth- and twentieth-century catalogs, firearms have long been advertised for both civilian and military use. Many firearms throughout American history have been designed and sold for both purposes. The line this lawsuit treats as decisive—military arms versus civilian arms—does not exist in the historical record.

If allegations like these are enough to permit lawsuits, every company that advertises a firearm in the way firearms have always been advertised could be sued after any crime committed with a similar product. Such a rule would threaten lawful arms commerce, and with it, the right to keep and bear arms.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA's ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit www.nraila.org/litigation to keep up to date on NRA-ILA's ongoing litigation efforts.