The battle over the Second Amendment has taken a new and dangerous turn. On November 10, 2025, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sent a letter to Sturm, Ruger & Co., threatening legal action under the Connecticut Firearms Industry Responsibility Act (CFIRA) — a controversial law that could make gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by others. This marks the latest move in a coordinated campaign between state officials and anti-gun groups to undermine the firearms industry from within.

This attack began when the legal arm of Everytown for Gun Safety sent a warning letter to Ruger, accusing the company of “recklessly” designing its new Ruger RXM pistol to mimic Glock handguns — which can be illegally modified with black-market “switches” to fire fully automatic. Everytown demanded that Ruger pull the RXM from the market immediately, even though:

• Ruger does not manufacture or sell conversion devices.
• There are no known cases of a Ruger RXM being used in a crime.
• The gun fully complies with federal and state law.

Days later, AG Tong echoed the same claims in his own letter, suggesting Ruger could be liable if it was “reasonably foreseeable” that someone might illegally modify one of its pistols.

Under the CFIRA, the Connecticut AG can sue gun companies if they fail to exercise “reasonable controls” or if their products could “reasonably promote” illegal use — vague standards that effectively allow the state to sue lawful manufacturers for criminal misuse. Tong’s office also invoked Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, expanding the threat to include claims over marketing and design.

Critics argue this approach directly circumvents federal protections granted under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields manufacturers from lawsuits over crimes committed with their products. By using state-level liability laws, anti-gun activists have found a new path to pressure — or even bankrupt — legal gun companies.

If this strategy spreads to other blue states, it could create an industry-wide chilling effect:

• Manufacturers may pull models or stop producing entire lines of handguns and rifles.
• Prices could skyrocket due to legal risks.
• Innovation could stall, as companies prioritize lawsuit protection over design improvements.

This campaign mirrors the anti-tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s — but this time, it targets an industry protected by the Bill of Rights.

Glock has already begun transitioning its product line, reportedly to avoid legal risk over convertibility claims. Now, with Everytown and state attorneys general coordinating, the next frontier of gun control won’t come through bans or Congress — it will come through the courtroom.

Gun rights advocates warn this approach represents a “war of attrition” against lawful commerce. Rather than going after criminals, states like Connecticut are going after law-abiding manufacturers, hoping to choke off supply and weaken Americans’ access to firearms.