BELLEVUE, Wash. — Sept. 28, 2026 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed an amicus brief with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the U.S. Supreme Court case Daniel Defense v. Lowy supporting petitioners’ request for review of a Fourth Circuit decision.
The plaintiffs in the case seek to hold lawful firearms manufacturers liable for a third party’s crime on the theory that advertisements using military, patriotic, or law-enforcement themes promoted a “warrior mentality” and appealed to “militaristic fantasies.” The plaintiffs have never so much as proven the suspect in the crime even saw the ads in question, let alone that he was influenced by them to commit a heinous crime. The Fourth Circuit held that allegations the shooter was “exposed to and influenced by” such ads satisfy Article III standing.
The brief argues that military themes have long accompanied civilian arms commerce. That’s appropriate given the Second Amendment’s militia clause, the Founding-era duty of militiamen to bring their own combat-suitable arms, civilian participation in posse comitatus and home-guard service, and Congress’ longstanding Civilian Marksmanship Program and surplus-service-arm sales to the public.
“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.”
The same models sold to civilians such as Colt revolvers, Spencer and Henry rifles, Winchester lever-actions and others were also used by the military. For centuries advertisements have emphasized military adoption, combat imagery and readiness, from colonial muskets “fitted with bayonets,” through Colt’s battle-scene engravings, and Henry’s “Always Loaded and Always Ready” ad campaigns. Treating those ordinary themes as the cause of a third party’s independent crime would haul manufacturers into court after nearly every tragedy.
“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.”
For more information visit SAF.org.
The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group dedicated to safeguarding and promoting the fundamental rights of individuals enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. SAF engages in aggressive legal action to ensure the principles of armed self-defense, personal liberty, and the ownership of arms are defended, secured, and restored. Through public education initiatives, SAF teaches the importance of the Second Amendment to promote a society that values and exercises the right to keep and bear arms.
Read the full article here
