Illinois lawmakers are at it again, pushing legislation that would force lawful and highly regulated firearm manufacturers to shoulder the costs tied to firearm-related injuries and deaths — regardless of who criminally misused a firearm involved, how it was acquired or when it entered the stream of commerce.
House Bill 3320, the so-called Responsibility in Firearm Legislation (RIFL) Act, would establish a state licensing scheme for firearm manufacturers and tie licensing fees to costs Illinois state government attributes to firearm injuries and deaths. The Senate companion bill is Senate Bill 2279. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has, of course, voiced his support for the effort.
Neither bill has passed its chamber, yet. HB 3320 was re-referred to the House Rules Committee on March 27 after substantial amendments were proposed earlier that month. SB 2279 was re-referred to the Senate Assignments Committee on May 22. The legislation, however, has attracted significant Democrat cosponsorship in both chambers, keeping alive a proposal that would fundamentally change the cost of lawful firearm commerce in Illinois.
Making Lawful Manufacturers Pay for Crimes
The premise behind the RIFL Act is straightforward: make lawful and regulated firearm manufacturers pay costs Illinois associates with the criminal misuse of firearms.
As introduced, HB 3320 directs the state to establish a firearm manufacturer licensing scheme and requires the total licensing fees collected from manufacturers to equal what Illinois calculates as the “public health costs and financial burdens” associated with firearm injuries and deaths.
If passed and signed into law, beginning January 1, 2028, manufacturers would be prohibited from operating in Illinois without a state license. Firearm retailers would also be prohibited from selling firearms made by an “unlicensed” manufacturer. Manufacturers violating the requirement could face civil penalties of up to $1 million per month, while retailers could face penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation.
That is not a traditional licensing fee calibrated to the administrative cost of licensing a regulated business. The RIFL Act instead attempts to assign costs arising from firearm injuries and criminal misuse to companies that manufacture lawful products.
Firearm manufacturers do not choose who criminally misuses their products, nor do they maintain control over firearms indefinitely after lawful distribution and retail sale. The RIFL Act nevertheless proposes making those downstream events part of the price manufacturers must pay to access the Illinois market. That would greatly increase the cost law-abiding Illinois residents would then pay just to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
2026 Amendment Goes Even Further
If it didn’t already read like an out-of-control freight train barreling toward Second Amendment rights in Illinois, it recently got even worse. The proposal became more expansive in 2026. In March, lawmakers filed proposed House Amendment 3, which would replace the underlying bill with a broader regulatory structure by creating an independent RIFL Agency and governing board to license firearm manufacturers and determine how much each company must pay.
The agency would calculate fees partly by counting firearms linked to a manufacturer that were recovered in connection with firearm injuries or deaths, even if those firearms were originally sold outside Illinois. Manufacturers could therefore face higher fees based on incidents involving firearms they sold legally and had no control over.
The amendment would also bar retailers, distributors and importers from handling firearms made by manufacturers without a RIFL license. Its restrictions would reach private sellers and firearm trade shows, potentially limiting which firearms Illinois residents could buy or sell.
The new, more restrictive amendment was re-referred to the House Rules Committee with HB 3320 on March 27.
Regulation on Top of Regulation
Firearm manufacturers, distributors and retailers already operate under extensive federal laws and regulations, including the Gun Control Act and regulations administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Manufacturers must be federally licensed, mark firearms with required identifying information and maintain required records. Firearm retailers are federally licensed and subject to federal transfer, recordkeeping and background check requirements.
The firearm industry is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. The RIFL Act would add something different. Its fees would not merely finance licensing administration or regulatory inspections. But under the proposed 2026 amendment, money collected through the program would be spent on “community violence intervention,” victim services, high-risk youth intervention and other “violence prevention programs.” Notice how strict prosecution or criminals and stiff penalties and jail time aren’t mentioned.
Illinois lawmakers can debate how those programs should be funded. But the RIFL Act raises a more fundamental question: Why should lawful firearm manufacturers be forced to finance them based on criminal acts committed by unaffiliated third parties?
Illinois Keeps Pushing the Regulatory Envelope
The RIFL Act as proposed comes as Illinois is already defending sweeping firearm restrictions in federal court.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in June to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County’s ban on commonly owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). NSSF has argued that Supreme Court precedent protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes.
Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in July reversed and remanded a lower court ruling that struck down Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act restrictions on MSRs and standard-capacity magazines. NSSF, a plaintiff in that litigation, announced it plans to petition the Supreme Court for review.
The RIFL Act would open another front, this time targeting lawful firearm commerce through a licensing and cost-recovery scheme built around harms attributed to lawfully made firearms after they leave manufacturers’ control. The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) already holds that lawful firearm manufacturers cannot be held liable for the criminal conduct of remote third parties (i.e., criminals) after firearms are initially and lawfully transferred to a lawful customer.
HB 3320 and SB 2279 remain pending, not enacted, and neither has cleared its chamber, yet. But lawmakers’ continued sponsorship and the sweeping amendment proposed in 2026 show the idea has not gone away. And Gov. Pritzker remains supportive of the effort.
For firearm manufacturers, retailers and Illinois gun owners, the stakes are clear. If lawmakers revive the RIFL Act, Illinois will have to answer whether the state can condition access to its lawful firearm market on manufacturers paying for conduct they did not commit and cannot control.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.