Connect with us

Latest News

January 1, Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks California’s Anti-Gun Manufacturer Law



In a surprising turn of events, a federal judge, appointed by President Biden no less, has put a halt to California’s law that would have allowed lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for selling what they deem “abnormally dangerous” guns. The ruling came down on Wednesday, effectively blocking the enforcement of the controversial law.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a firearms trade association, initiated the lawsuit in May 2023. Their argument was that the law not only violated the Second Amendment, but also contradicted the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case.

“Because the ‘abnormally dangerous’ firearm rule reaches beyond California’s borders and directly regulates out-of-state commercial transactions, it likely runs afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause,” wrote District Court Judge Andrew Schopler, the Biden appointee who issued the preliminary injunction. This injunction prevents Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing the law while the lawsuit is ongoing.

It’s worth noting that California isn’t the only state to pass such laws. New Jersey and Delaware have also enacted legislation allowing for lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the “California’s Firearm Industry Responsibility Act” into law in July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Bruen ruling. This ruling affirmed that gun laws must be evaluated in light of the Nation’s “historical tradition” of regulating firearms.

“Bruen should have led states to reconsider their laws to make them more protective of rights the Supreme Court had just reaffirmed as fundamental,” the NSSF’s lawsuit stated. “Unfortunately, it has prompted the opposite reaction in several of the states that have consistently proven least protective of Second Amendment rights.”

California’s law would have allowed state and local governments, as well as individuals, to sue gun manufacturers. “Nearly every industry is held liable when people are hurt or killed by their products – guns should be no different,” Newsom said in a statement after signing the law.

As of now, Attorney General Bonta has not responded to requests for comment. Regardless, this ruling represents a significant pushback against the encroachment on Second Amendment rights, even coming from a judge appointed by a Democratic president. It remains to be seen how this will impact similar laws in other states.

Why It Matters (op-ed)

In a stunning display of judicial integrity, a Biden-appointed judge blocked California’s overreaching law targeting firearm manufacturers. This decision, a victory for the Second Amendment, demonstrates the importance of adhering to the Constitution regardless of political affiliation.

The fact that other states have enacted similar legislation is a worrying trend. However, this ruling serves as a reminder that the Constitution still reigns supreme, even in states notorious for infringing on citizens’ rights.

It’s crucial that we remain vigilant and hold our elected officials accountable for their attempts to undermine our fundamental rights. Today’s decision is a step in the right direction, but the fight is far from over.

As our loyal readers, we encourage you to share your thoughts and opinions on this issue. Let your voice be heard and join the discussion below.




  1. mike

    February 26, 2024 at 7:15 am

    this would open the door to sue everything from auto’s to pharma
    remember cars & trucks kill not the drivers

  2. Bern

    February 26, 2024 at 8:04 am

    Lets equate this law to other commerically available products. If we equate this to an automobile, this California law would allow for the following: Felon A decides to drive his pickup truck (Brand AMC) down the 101 freeway and ram into every car that Felon A sees on the freeway, causing major damage to every vehicle. This law would provide the ability for every damaged vehicle owner to sue and win (Brand AMC) auto maker for causing the damage. That’s outlandish. There are millions of owners of Brand AMC vehicles who never used their AMC to do anything like this.

    Or let’s say Fool A decides to drive his AMC home after drinking all afternoon at the bar, over twice the legal limit of alcohol in his bloodstream. Fool A drives across the center line and crashes head-on into opposing traffic. This law provides that every person damaged, hurt or killed by the drunk driver’s illegal activity can sue and win against AMC car company for making the car.

  3. Doug_S

    February 26, 2024 at 10:21 am

    The argument that “Nearly every industry is held liable when people are hurt or killed by their products” is a smokescreen. Yes, most industry is liable if the product is defective. This is not the case with firearms. California wants to blame the manufacturer if the firearm is used for illegal purposes. No manufacturer can control how the end user utilizes their product. By this logic, a car manufacturer or distillery is guilty for the drunk driver killing someone. Or a knife or baseball bat manufacturer is quilty for a stabbing or bludgeoning. Ridiculous. And this is happening at the same time where California, among others ignores personal responsibility, or jailing people who commit these very acts they want to blame on a object.

  4. Almeda Steinke

    February 26, 2024 at 6:40 pm


  5. Jim

    April 6, 2024 at 4:01 pm

    Kudos to the judge. Common sense and the law finally prevails. Laws like this one is testament to the absolute idiots that are elected to office. Their political agendas ‘trump’ logic and the well-being of ‘We the People’. Ultimately, it is the voter who is to blame for putting these Commies in power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *