Legal scholars dissect the vague 'reasonable' standard in new gun liability laws
A recent working paper argues that the term “reasonable” in state firearms industry liability statutes is defined by gun-control advocates to match their policy goals.
Eleven states have adopted “Firearms Industry Responsibility Acts” after New York’s 2022 legislation, allowing tort claims against gun retailers and manufacturers for conduct that is not “reasonable.” The industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation sued, claiming the statutes were unconstitutionally vague, yet the Second Circuit rejected that argument, citing the term’s established legal usage. In a new working paper from the University of Wyoming’s Firearms Research Center, researcher Del Schlangen examined how gun-control advocates employ the word “reasonable.”
The study lists 170 written examples and concludes that the term is used as a catch-all endorsement for any restriction the advocates support, ranging from bans on handguns to limits on magazine size. The paper suggests that this fluid definition deprives courts of a clear standard. The analysis contrasts this approach with traditional negligence law, such as a grocery store’s duty to clean spills, highlighting the broader policy intent behind the gun-industry statutes.
Why it matters
Understanding how “reasonable” is defined affects future litigation and the scope of gun-control legislation.
In this story
