A new effort coined “Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy” is receiving sympathetic media coverage from a known gun control advocacy “news site” for what it claims is a breakthrough: a set of eight state-level “harm reduction” policies drafted by a panel that purportedly included both gun rights and gun control voices.
The package includes numerous proposals and was shaped over the course of a year by 23 so-called leaders in “gun violence prevention” and those who supposedly respect gun rights and framed as “updated versions of familiar gun control concepts.”
That framing is politically clever. It is also misleading and incomplete. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as the saying goes.
Update Background Check Data, Don’t Expand Burdens
The package calls for “stronger state background checks,” and ideas pitched as “wins” for gun owners like faster checks and a peer-to-peer check tool.
Here’s the reality: background checks are only as good as the records submitted into the system. The most direct public safety improvement is ensuring mental health records and other disqualifying records are complete and timely, not adding new layers on lawful transfers. That is exactly why the firearm industry has pushed FixNICS, focused on improving submissions of disqualifying records that already trigger prohibitions under current law. A bipartisan federal law was enacted in 2018 and NSSF has worked in the states to enact 16 state-level FixNICS laws as well.
If the “Bridging” project is sincere, it should start by demanding state compliance with existing reporting duties, measurable performance targets and accountability for agencies that fail to enter records. Otherwise, “expanded background checks” quickly becomes a way to burden lawful commerce while criminals continue to ignore the law.
Due Process Threatened
The proposal package also includes measures on Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or so-called “red flag” laws, that the group claims will “enhance due process protections,” clarify firearm return procedures and implement penalties for vindictive misuse. To be clear, NSSF has never opposed state ERPO proposals that include adequate, substantive and procedural Due Process protections, but to this day no existing law has.
In a podcast with The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski, panel member Rob Pincus, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Organization, founder of the Gun Makers’ Match and owner of a firearm manufacturing company, suggested the issue isn’t whether someone in crisis should be separated from firearms, but whether the policy addresses the underlying problem while protecting individual rights.
“What we don’t agree is that merely taking their guns away is good enough,” Pincus stated on the podcast. “Like if there’s an underlying problem, we have to address the underlying problem. There has to be due process. There has to be a clear path towards restoration of rights.”
While the concept addresses real concerns, they also reveal the unavoidable point: the constitutional risk of ERPOs is not theoretical. Removing access to constitutionally protected property based on allegations and predictions invites abuse unless the process is exceptionally strict.
Anything less will be used against ordinary citizens in family disputes, workplace conflicts and neighborhood feuds. And if a proposal’s answer is “trust the system,” it is not a compromise – it’s a demand for surrender of rights.
Target Criminal Networks, Not Lawful Retailers
Writing of the “compromise” ideas, The Trace describes one area with a major tradeoff: stronger oversight for firearm retailers “tied” to a high share of crime-scene recoveries in exchange for state-level protections echoing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, at least for retailers. The PLCAA exists for a reason: it aims to prevent civil actions by gun control activists and eager trial lawyers seeking to blame lawful firearm manufacturers and retailers for harms “solely caused” by criminals misusing products that function as designed. And, because it is federal law the PLCAA already applies in every state.
“High share of crime guns” sounds precise, but it is misleading. Retailers in high-crime areas will naturally see more firearms later recovered by police, even when the original sales were lawful. That correlation does not establish wrongdoing. Even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives asserts that point. It can incentivize regulators to pressure lawful firearm retailers through subjective standards, administrative harassment or “gotcha” paperwork traps rather than focusing on actual criminal conduct.
The criminal conduct worth prioritizing is already known: straw purchasing and illegal trafficking. NSSF and ATF have long partnered on Don’t Lie for the Other Guy to deter straw purchases and educate communities about felony penalties. A real “bridge” would double down on prosecution of straw purchasers and illegal gun traffickers, not build new regulatory theories that treat lawful businesses as the problem. NSSF is not interested in trading the illusion of additional liability protection the industry already has through the PLCAA and existing state laws in exchange for agenda-driven state regulatory offices whose mission it is to drive licensees out of business.
Don’t Criminalize Responsibility
The “Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy” package also includes proposals on safe storage, suicide prevention and firearm injury prevention education – areas where genuine progress is most plausible, because they can and are being pursued without turning constitutional rights into conditional privileges. But, it’s the “how” that matters here.
Voluntary education, community partnerships and practical tools are much more effective than criminal penalties aimed at families who are already trying to do the right thing. The firearm industry has a strong record here: NSSF’s Project ChildSafe has provided more than 41 million free firearm safety kits including cable gun locks through more than 15,000 partnerships with law enforcement agencies nationwide. Manufacturers have also distributed locking devices with new firearms lawfully sold at retail for decades, reinforcing the norm of secure storage. Product manuals provided with newly manufactured guns counsel the owner on safe firearm handling and storage and manufactures make them available for free on their websites. Federal law has long required retailers to make locks available for purchase. Firearm safety education and training is widely available at retailers and ranges all across America.
Any policy that treats mental health as a back door to weakening Second Amendment rights will drive people away from seeking the help they need.
‘Prohibiting Factors’ and the ‘Grand Compromise’ Trap
The “Bridging the Divide” panel’s package was approved by a board consensus and compiled into a 67-page package for states to consider. It includes new prohibiting factors for those convicted of violent misdemeanors while also offering rollbacks such as repealing state suppressor and short-barreled rifle (SBR) restrictions with at least one member expressing interest in removing redundant state prohibitions that mirror federal National Firearms Act restrictions.
This is another area where the public needs clarification and that the supposed “pro-gun rights” members should’ve already understood. “Compromise” only works if it is anchored to principle: disqualifications must be tied to adjudicated dangerousness with Due Process, not political categories that expand over time. The moment “prohibiting factors” become vague, discretionary or purely status-based, they become a rights problem disguised as safety policy.
What truly reduces firearm-related tragedies isn’t theoretical. It’s measurable and already happening through safety initiatives that respect rights, like NSSF’s Real Solutions initiative.
If policymakers want progress, the path forward isn’t to “split the difference” by surrendering constitutional rights in exchange for ever expanding government control over lawful ownership and hoping criminals will play along. The path forward is to push for stricter enforcement of existing laws, prosecute trafficking and straw purchasing, fix and update record systems and reinforce voluntary safety efforts that already save lives without weakening a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The so-called Second Amendment advocates taking part in this exercise should have known better. They certainly don’t speak for the firearm industry.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.