Members of the judiciary have lately become activists — they’ve gone beyond their traditional roles of interpreting the law and applying it to a given set of facts.
Judges are now re-writing the law, to say whatever they want it to say.
Although the federal judiciary has been the biggest culprit, this week an Illinois judge all but ignored a federal statute in order to find one of America’s most respected armorers liable for injuries inflicted by a third person.
Lake County, Illinois Circuit Court Judge Jorge L. Ortiz ruled Wednesday that plaintiffs could sue Smith & Wesson in a wrongful death lawsuit in connection with a 2022 Highland Park mass shooting upon a Fourth of July parade, resulting in seven dead and 48 injured.
The plaintiffs, families of several victims of the shooting whose lawyers worked with Everytown for Gun Safety's legal team, don’t allege that the gunmaker took part in the shooting in any manner.
Instead they claim that Smith & Wesson marketed its M&P-15 semi-automatic rifle to teenagers, violating an Illinois consumer protection law that bars any advertising that promotes criminal use of a weapon.
Plaintiffs further allege that the M&P-15 was used in several mass shootings since its introduction in 2006, which should have prompted Smith & Wesson to stop production of the rifle.
But over and above that, federal law prohibits this very type of nuisance lawsuit.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law in 2005, shields gunmakers and dealers from liability for crimes committed using their products.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in early March in another case in which Smith & Wesson is a party, and where the PLCAA is also being challenged, this time by Mexico.
The gunmaker is expected to win.
Former President Joe Biden has often railed against the PLCAA, claiming that it gives gunmakers unprecedented total immunity from prosecution.
Gun manufacturers are "the only industry in America that is exempted from being sued by the public," he claimed on Feb. 3, 2022. "The only one."
However, gunmakers can be sued under product liability laws for any injury sustained due to a defect in the design or manufacture of their products — just like any other company.
The Second Amendment Foundation responded to the judge’s ruling with a blistering press release.
"Such legal actions are precisely why Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) back during the George W. Bush administration," said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president.
"Smith & Wesson is no more responsible for the evil act committed by the Highland Park shooter than a car manufacturer would be if some drunk behind the wheel smashed into a school bus and caused a fatal crash."
Gottlieb added that the only reason that this and similar lawsuits are filed is to financially harm gun manufacturers.
"This legal action appears solely designed to cost the company millions of dollars in an attempt to drive it out of business," he said.
"We’re aware the plaintiffs have been working with billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, which has previously supported lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry, thus depriving consumers from purchasing firearms and exercising their rights under the Second Amendment."
Judicial overreach has been an issue lately within the federal court system, where U.S. district court judges have enjoined President Trump from implementing his own policies nationwide.
In effect, these local judges are setting their own national policy.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed concern about this during an appearance on "Kudlow," on Fox Business Tuesday.
"There are already more of these [rulings] coming down the road than the Supreme Court has ever heard in a single term. I would hope that the Supreme Court Chief Justice [John Roberts] would intervene, indicate that there’s something clearly wrong here and that they’re going to follow a procedure so that the executive branch is not being dictated to by random individual district judges," Gingrich told host Larry Kudlow.
If these federal judges disagree with the president’s policy decisions, they should probably run for president and promote their own policy ideas.
Similarly, if Illinois Judge Jorge Ortiz doesn’t like the 20-year-old PLCAA, he should probably get elected to Congress and try to persuade a majority of his colleagues to scrap the law.
Until then he should probably just stay in his own lane.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and is a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He's also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.