Major Setback for Gun Industry in Illinois

In a major legal development, an Illinois court has ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit against Smith & Wesson – the manufacturer of the M&P 15 rifle used in the 2022 Highland Park mass shooting – can proceed to trial.

As reported by FOX 32 Chicago, the court’s decision allows the family of Eduardo Uvaldo, one of the seven victims killed during the July 4th parade shooting, along with other survivors, to move ahead with legal claims against the gunmaker and two firearm dealers. The lawsuit alleges that the company engaged in marketing practices that deliberately appealed to young, impressionable audiences, despite a history of the weapon being used in multiple mass shootings.

The Heart of the Case: Marketing to Youth

Attorneys representing the victims’ families argue that Smith & Wesson targeted youth through its advertising of the M&P 15. As ABC7 Chicago reports, plaintiff attorney Josh Koskoff stated that Smith & Wesson’s branding strategy was akin to promoting a “weapon of war” to young people. The suit specifically points to previous mass shootings in Parkland, San Bernardino, Aurora, and Poway – all involving the same rifle. The plaintiffs argue that this continued marketing campaign was not only reckless but also in violation of Illinois consumer protection laws.

A Question of Responsibility

At the center of the legal debate is whether Smith & Wesson can be held accountable for the criminal actions of a third party. According to the Four Boxes Diner, hosted by constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, this is precisely the kind of legal theory the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was created to prevent. Signed into law in 2005, PLCAA generally shields gunmakers from liability when their products are used unlawfully by others. However, the Illinois court appears to be moving forward under one of the law’s exceptions – known as the “predicate exception” – which allows claims to proceed if the manufacturer violated a specific state law in the sale or marketing of the product.

Why the Highland Park Case Is Different

What makes this case stand out is how it may test the limits of PLCAA’s protections. As explained by Mark Smith, Judge George Ortiz ruled that the plaintiffs can proceed with discovery, meaning they’ll be able to demand internal company records and communications that may shed light on Smith & Wesson’s marketing strategies. Judge Ortiz accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that the company owed a “duty of care” to the public and that its marketing made the eventual tragedy “reasonably foreseeable.” This marks a significant moment where marketing behavior – not just the product itself – is being placed under the legal microscope.

Gun Dealers Also Under Fire

The court also permitted claims to continue against BudsGunShop.com and Red Dot Arms, two retailers that sold the rifle to the shooter, Robert Crimo III. According to ABC7, plaintiffs allege the sale violated local laws, as Crimo lived in a town where he was not allowed to possess such a firearm. These claims add another layer of legal exposure for not just manufacturers but also the entire supply chain in gun transactions.

Criminal Convictions in the Background

Robert Crimo III pleaded guilty on March 3 2025 to all charges related to the shooting, which left seven dead and 48 injured. His father was also sentenced for his role in facilitating the FOID card that allowed the younger Crimo to obtain firearms, despite numerous red flags. While the shooter himself is already serving multiple life sentences, this civil case seeks broader accountability beyond the individual who pulled the trigger. As FOX 32 reported, the families involved say the case is not just about damages – it’s about getting answers and preventing future tragedies.

A Historic Legal Opening for Gun Control Advocates

The legal team representing the plaintiffs includes Romanucci & Blandin LLC, Everytown Law, and Wallace Miller, all of whom celebrated the court’s decision as a landmark moment. “Today’s historic decision sends a clear message that the gun industry does not have carte blanche to engage in irresponsible marketing,” the firms said in a joint statement published by FOX 32 Chicago. They emphasized that this ruling could shift the landscape for future litigation against gun companies by opening the door to state-level challenges despite federal protections.

A Dangerous Precedent?

Gun rights advocates, however, see the ruling as deeply troubling. Mark W. Smith of the Four Boxes Diner expressed serious concern that the Illinois decision creates a dangerous precedent that threatens the entire firearms industry through what he calls “lawfare” – the use of legal systems to pressure or bankrupt lawful businesses. Smith compared this lawsuit to blaming a car company if a drunk driver crashes into a school bus, a comparison echoed by Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, who warned that such legal tactics are precisely what PLCAA was meant to prevent.

The Mexico Case Connection

The ruling in Illinois has also reignited attention to the Mexico v. Smith & Wesson case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. In that federal case, the Mexican government alleges that U.S. gun companies bear responsibility for cartel violence south of the border. According to Mark W. Smith, a strong and broad ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of Smith & Wesson in the Mexico case could have ripple effects protecting the gun industry in state-level cases like this one in Illinois. However, a narrow ruling based only on federal technicalities might leave state court challenges wide open.

Using a Law Passed After the Fact

One curious and controversial aspect of the Illinois case is that part of the legal argument relies on a state law passed in 2023 – after the 2022 Highland Park shooting. Critics argue this is unfair retroactive application of the law. But as Smith explains on Four Boxes Diner, Judge Ortiz waved off the timing issue, allowing the case to proceed. Whether this approach will survive on appeal is uncertain, but it raises serious questions about legal consistency and due process.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Illinois

This case feels like a bellwether moment. It’s not just about one tragedy or one gun – it’s about redefining legal responsibility in the firearms world. If marketing alone can be considered a form of negligence, even without a direct sale, then every product with potential for misuse could become a liability bomb. The decision will likely embolden more lawsuits, perhaps with mixed motives: some seeking justice, others aiming to choke the gun industry through courtroom attrition.

Marketing vs. Misuse – Where’s the Line?

Here’s the part that is fascinating about this. Every business markets. Cars, video games, energy drinks – they all build messages around strength, speed, and adrenaline. But in this case, the idea that a legal product, marketed legally, can be linked through messaging alone to mass murder puts us in strange territory. Does this mean tactical imagery in ads is now a legal liability? If a 21-year-old sees an ad and commits a crime, does the logo make the maker guilty? There’s a slippery slope here, and it’s not just about guns.

Next Steps: Discovery, Then Trial

With the motion to dismiss denied, the next phase is discovery, where plaintiffs will demand access to Smith & Wesson’s internal records, emails, and marketing strategy documents. This phase could last months, possibly years, and may reveal information the company would prefer remain confidential. No trial date has been set, but the case is officially moving forward, a fact that both plaintiffs and gun control advocates are celebrating – and one that the gun industry is watching with growing concern.

A Major Legal Battle Just Began

The Illinois ruling isn’t the end of the road – it’s just the start of what could become a nationally significant legal battle. As both sides prepare for the long haul, the case will continue to draw headlines, spark debates, and possibly shift legal strategies for how guns are sold, marketed, and judged in court. Whether this marks a new era of accountability or a troubling overreach will depend on what comes next – not just in Illinois, but in courts across the country.