In 2022, a criminal opened fire toward a Washington, D.C., school. Now more than a dozen companies that made firearms, ammunition, and accessories he purchased are being sued over their advertising—even though the complaints do not identify a particular challenged ad he saw.
The National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to put a stop to that theory. In a September 24 amicus brief supporting the manufacturers in Daniel Defense, LLC v. Lowy, No. 26-60, the groups argue that ordinary marketing of lawful arms cannot be treated as the cause of an independent criminal’s attack.
This case is about more than a company’s Instagram posts. If plaintiffs can point to military imagery, a slogan about readiness, or a firearm’s service pedigree and use it to drag a gun maker into court after a criminal attack, the cost of that litigation becomes another weapon against the lawful firearms market. Gun owners ultimately pay for that campaign through fewer choices and less access to the arms and ammunition the Second Amendment protects.
The criminal made the decision. Gun makers did not.
On April 22, 2022, the attacker fired from an apartment overlooking the Edmund Burke School. A parent and a school security guard were wounded, and a student was inside the school during the attack. The attacker later killed himself. The victims’ injuries were real and serious. Responsibility for the attack belongs to the person who committed it.
The survivors sued Daniel Defense and other manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and accessories under Virginia false-advertising, consumer-protection, and negligence theories. Their complaints attack marketing they say promoted a “warrior mentality” and appealed to young men with militaristic fantasies. They allege, on information and belief, that the attacker was exposed to and influenced by defendants’ marketing while researching and planning the attack. They do not, however, identify which challenged posts he saw.
A federal district court dismissed the suits for lack of Article III standing. A divided Fourth Circuit panel reversed in February, finding the allegations sufficient at this early stage to link the companies’ alleged conduct to the victims’ injuries. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum dissented. As he explained, the complaints did not plausibly connect an advertisement to his decision to target the school.
The manufacturers’ Supreme Court petition asks whether a criminal’s actions can be traced to social-media posts and other speech when the plaintiffs have not alleged that he saw the particular speech they challenge.
The Founders Did Not Reserve Military Arms for the Government
NRA and SAF’s brief does something the anti-gun marketing theory cannot: it takes the history of American gun ownership seriously. The Second Amendment begins with the importance of a well-regulated militia because armed citizens were expected to furnish their own suitable arms. For generations, guns marketed to civilians have also served soldiers, militiamen, law enforcement, and Americans defending their homes.
The brief walks through colonial advertisements for muskets and bayonets, Colt revolvers sold with military credentials, Henry rifles promoted for sporting and defensive use, and Congress’s later support for civilian marksmanship and sales of surplus service arms. A martial theme in an ad is hardly a modern invention by an AR-15 manufacturer. It is part of the history of American arms commerce.
SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros explained the history and the risk in the group’s September 28 release:
“This is not a new kind of speech. It is how Americans have sold and described arms since the Founding,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Traceability requires more than a distant ripple through someone else’s criminal choice. If commonplace military or law-enforcement themes in lawful advertising are enough for standing, every manufacturer becomes a defendant after a crime committed with a similar product.”
We haven’t won until mainstream publications run gun ads again. pic.twitter.com/apVAHuyjpC
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 25, 2026
That is why the groups say the lawsuit “mistakes a centuries-old form of firearms advertising for a causal connection to a particular crime.” The fact that a rifle has military roots, or that a company says it is ready for duty, tells us nothing about whether a particular ad caused the attacker to target the school. The brief warns that the plaintiffs’ theory could make ordinary marketing “a basis for standing after every tragedy.”
The plaintiffs’ argument also turns the Second Amendment’s militia connection on its head. They treat imagery tied to the historic civilian ownership of serviceable arms as if it were inherently suspicious. Gun owners know better. A semiautomatic rifle does not lose constitutional protection because its design has a military pedigree. Neither its appearance nor a manufacturer’s description transfers responsibility for a criminal’s choice to the people who make and sell it.
Lawfare Reaches Past the Manufacturer
AmmoLand recently reported on the Highland Park lawsuit’s subpoena of firearms reviewer James Reeves. That separate case shows how a marketing theory can reach gun media as well as gun makers: plaintiffs there have sought material concerning reviews and social-media content. This petition does not decide the legal status of independent journalism, but the broader pressure on speech about lawful guns is already visible.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut addressed what such lawsuits mean for the right to keep and bear arms:
“Lawsuits that treat ordinary marketing as the cause of a third party’s crime threaten lawful arms commerce and the right that depends on it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Lawmakers will stop at nothing to throttle the Second Amendment, even if it means trying to prove marketing campaigns are the reason people commit crimes. We feel this case provides the perfect vehicle for the Court to make clear that historically ordinary speech about lawful arms does not make people break the law.”
Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to prevent the firearms industry from being held liable simply because someone criminally misuses a lawful product. The district court alternatively concluded that PLCAA barred these claims. The Fourth Circuit vacated that ruling on procedural grounds: once the district court found no standing, it lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits. The appeals court did not hold that PLCAA permits the suits, and it did not find any manufacturer liable. Those questions remain open.
For now, NRA and SAF want the Supreme Court to enforce the threshold rule. A victim must connect the defendant’s conduct to the injury; pointing to familiar gun advertising and then to the attacker’s independent actions does not supply that connection. If the standard disappears whenever a gun is involved, activists will have another way to punish lawful commerce and speech without persuading Congress to ban either one.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. Respondents’ response to the petition is due October 26, 2026. The justices should take the case and make clear that the person who attacks a school is responsible for that crime, not every business that sold or advertised a lawful product he later misused.
ATF Says Suppressor and SBR Guidance Could Arrive Within Weeks
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
