The verdict was the result of a lawsuit brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) against 68 defendants - including Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock, Inc., and other major gun makers and distributors - alleging that these companies knew corrupt dealers were supplying their products to criminals in minority communities and did nothing to stop it.
Both sides will submit written arguments interpreting the verdict within 30 days, and U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein will then make the final determination in the case.
Instead of seeking monetary damages, the NAACP suit seeks to make distributors restrict sales to dealers who have storefront outlets, prohibit sales to gun show dealers and limit individual purchasers to one handgun a month.
During five weeks of testimony from both sides of the dispute, NAACP attorney Elisa Barnes said that the defendants knew they were feeding a pool of illegal handguns and "purposely turned their heads away from the problem."
The defendants and industry trade groups replied that it was unfair to hold manufacturers liable for the criminal use of a legal product.
"Nobody wants to have someone selling to criminals," said James Dorr, attorney for Sturm, Ruger & Co., during closing arguments. "This industry certainly doesn't."
On Wednesday, the 12-member advisory jury found unanimously for 38 of the industry defendants, while at least 10 of the 12 jurors ruled in favor of seven other defendants. In 23 additional instances, the jury failed to come to a decision.
The NAACP quickly condemned the ruling, while a spokesman for a pro-gun group praised it.
"We are disappointed with the findings of the advisory jury," said NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. "We await the final decision by the judge in this case."
Lawrence Keane, vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, had a different response.
"We welcome the advisory jury's common-sense finding that the manufacturers and distributors of firearms are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products," Keane said.
"The jury understood that these law-abiding companies had done absolutely nothing to cause a public nuisance in New York or harm the NAACP and its members. The proper thing for this court to do is dismiss the case immediately," he added.
Keane noted that in 1999, Barnes brought a virtually identical suit - Hamilton v. Accu-Tek - to New York's high court. In its verdict on that case, the court ruled: "In essence, plaintiffs argue that defendants had an affirmative duty to investigate and identify corrupt dealers. This is neither feasible nor appropriate for the manufacturers.... manufacturers should not make any attempt to investigate illegal gun trafficking on their own since such attempts could disrupt pending criminal investigations and endanger the lives of undercover officers."
Such lawsuits against the firearms industry "are the reason the U.S. Senate urgently needs to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," Keane said. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the bill this past month, he stated, and more than 30 states have enacted similar legislation.
"We hope to now have the opportunity to work cooperatively with groups that share our goal of further reducing firearms accidents and decreasing criminal violence committed with firearms," Keane said.
"We believe the NAACP shares these goals and now understands the path forward is best achieved through cooperation rather through expensive and time-consuming litigation."
Copyright
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.