Every Gun Owner’s New Year Resolution: Make Sure Your State Doesn’t Resemble Illinois

As a new year begins, a timeless new year resolution remains: Work hard to ensure your state does not become like Illinois. As multiple firearm-related news outlets revisit the highs and lows of 2025, it’s important to pay close attention to the carry-over priorities of the firearm prohibition movement.

Very high on their list in 2026 will be the continued attack on the firearm industry from top to bottom, while specifically working to dismantle the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and similar state protections. The end goal from year-to-year continues to be to overregulate, bankrupt, and disarm.

Illinois already proves difficult for the firearm industry, gun owners, and, quite frankly, citizens, at least those that embrace freedom, both market- and Constitution-based. In 2023, the state enacted the Firearms Industry Responsibility Act, supposedly providing a workaround to the PLCAA by allowing lawsuits to be brought against the firearm industry under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.

Firearm dealers and manufacturers, who are already significantly limited in marketing opportunities in Illinois, can now be sued in the state for certain marketing efforts regarding firearms, accessories, or firearm-related products. The definitions in the law are intentionally vague and overly broad, requiring firearm manufacturers to establish undefined “reasonable controls” to prevent criminal actions with firearms.

The law likely runs afoul of First Amendment protections as well, so harsh are its standards for what gun industry members can say about their own products. Even if the firearm industry complies entirely with all explicit state and federal laws, a judge or jury would only need to find that the industry member’s marketing contributes to “a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public.”

Unsurprisingly, FIRA was not enough. Recall the anti-gun strategy to also declare firearm ownership part of a public health crisis on gun violence, employ public health “experts” to oversee the crisis, and then create biased reports, data, and recommendations for action to make it look official, “scientific,” and actionable with the help of “professionals” like anti-gun doctors and academics.

Meet Dr. Anthony Douglas, a resident doctor working at University of Chicago Medicine Trauma Center. He’s the “architect of a policy experiment” according to a report from The Trace back in September working to take attacks on the firearm industry even further by requiring gun manufacturers proportionally to fund health care costs in order to obtain a license to do business in the state. The licensing fees for which a firearm company would be responsible under the scheme would correlate directly with how often a related firearm is recovered in firearm-related incidents, crime, and suicides. This was such an audacious proposal that in The Trace’s year-end 2025 report, it was highlighted as a “hopeful trajectory” for 2026.

Under current Illinois law, all federally licensed firearms dealers and retailers operating within the state must additionally be certified by the Illinois State Police, which requires completion of a dealer training program by “all owners, agents, and employees engaged in the transferring of firearms,” payment of $1,200 for retail locations, and other prior restraints contained in a lengthy list of requirements.

Last year, Dr. Douglas’ policy experiment went pen to paper to help expand this existing landmine of legal liability for gun manufacturers as the Responsibility in Firearm Legislation Act. This legislation not only meant specifically to further sidestep PLCAA protections in in Illinois but to serve as a “hopeful trajectory” and roadmap for other states to follow.

While it did not have successful movement during the 2025 legislative session, more support is being garnered as a growing coalition of Illinois lawmakers voice interest in the RIFL framework while also piquing the interest of other likeminded states. Dr. Douglas proclaimed, “Anything now can be argued in terms of constitutionality, but this is designed to avoid PLCAA.”

The RIFL Act would effectively serve to sidestep not only existing federal law but also the courts and any chance of an unbiased legal arbiter, instead using licensing fees to fund anti-gun measures rather than potential damages awarded by a judge or jury pursuant to a verdict produced under the adversary system. Ultimately, the gun industry would be found guilty before a charge was ever brought by having to “pre-confess” and pay for any future crimes by third parties involving their lawfully sold guns.

Nothing in this “experiment,” of course, is based on recognizable notions of justice, desert, or culpability, nor does it show any familiarity with the dynamics of firearm related crime. Criminals (particularly those driving firearm related violence in Illinois) almost never directly obtain their crime guns through regulated or lawful channels. The law already forbids this in a variety of ways. Also, the scheme incorrectly assumes that recovered guns accurately reflect the entire universe of crime guns. Instead, many firearm related assaults and homicides occur for which the weapon, and sometimes even the victim, is never identified.

Moreover, what further “reasonable controls” can a gun manufacturer possibly employ to prevent bad people from obtaining and using firearms in a criminal way beyond the plethora of existing federal and state laws that exist to regulate and punish gun-related crime? The only answer to that question under FIRA is to found after the fact, when a creative litigant comes up with yet another step the industry member should have taken, albeit one mentioned nowhere in the reams of regulations members already have to follow.

Cornerstone to the anti-gun agenda has long been deflecting blame to others for the crimes of a bad actor. The “others” will continue to be firearm manufacturers, gun shops, the National Rifle Association, gun owners, and Second Amendment supporters. With the start of 2026 and fresh anti-gun legislative ambition in full swing, coupled with critical elections on the horizon, NRA-ILA stands ready to meet these unconstitutional “trajectories” head on in Illinois and nationwide.