As 2026 begins, gun owners would be wise to look closely at Illinois—not as an outlier, but as a case study. The state has become a proving ground for policies designed to marginalize lawful firearm ownership by attacking the industry itself. What has taken shape there is neither accidental nor isolated.
The priorities of the gun prohibition movement remain consistent from year to year. Chief among them is the dismantling of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and similar state-level protections. The objective is simple: impose enough legal risk, regulatory burden, and financial pressure to make continued operation untenable. Illinois is demonstrating how that strategy is being executed.
In 2023, the state enacted the Firearms Industry Responsibility Act (FIRA), an explicit attempt to sidestep PLCAA by allowing lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and dealers under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The law relies on intentionally vague language and expansive liability standards that offer no clear compliance threshold.
Under FIRA, firearm companies—already operating under severe marketing restrictions—can be sued for how firearms, accessories, or related products are advertised or discussed. The statute requires manufacturers to implement undefined “reasonable controls” to prevent criminal misuse, without identifying what those controls entail. Even full compliance with existing state and federal law offers no protection. Liability may attach if a judge or jury concludes that lawful conduct contributes to a condition in Illinois that “endangers the safety or health of the public.”
That standard is so broad that it effectively nullifies predictability under the law. It also raises serious First Amendment concerns by penalizing lawful speech about lawful products.
FIRA was not the endpoint. It was the foundation.
The broader anti-gun strategy increasingly frames firearm ownership as a public health crisis, placing ideologically aligned “experts” in positions of authority to generate reports, data, and policy recommendations that justify further restrictions. Illinois has embraced that model and is now attempting to push it further.
Dr. Anthony Douglas, a resident physician at the University of Chicago Medicine Trauma Center, has been described by The Trace as the “architect of a policy experiment” aimed at forcing gun manufacturers to fund healthcare costs as a condition of doing business in the state. His proposal would tie licensing fees to how often a manufacturer’s firearms are recovered in crimes or suicides—regardless of how those firearms were obtained or used.
In The Trace’s year-end 2025 report, the proposal was highlighted as a “hopeful trajectory” for 2026.
This concept builds on Illinois’ already aggressive dealer licensing regime. In addition to federal licensing, firearm retailers must obtain state certification, complete mandatory training for all employees involved in firearm transfers, pay substantial fees ($1,200 per retail location), and comply with an extensive list of requirements.
Douglas’ ideas were formalized in the Responsibility in Firearm Legislation (RIFL) Act, which not only seeks to further evade PLCAA protections in Illinois but also serves as a roadmap for other states. While RIFL did not advance during the 2025 legislative session, support among Illinois lawmakers is growing, and interest from similarly inclined states is increasing. Douglas himself acknowledged the intent: “This is designed to avoid PLCAA.”
RIFL would replace the judicial process with a licensing-based punishment system. Instead of liability being determined by courts through evidence and adversarial testing, firearm manufacturers would be compelled to fund anti-gun initiatives through mandatory fees. Guilt would be presumed, not proven, and companies would be required to account in advance for crimes committed by third parties using lawfully sold products.
None of this reflects recognizable principles of justice or culpability. It also bears little relationship to how firearm-related crime actually occurs. Criminals—particularly those driving violent crime in Illinois—rarely acquire firearms through lawful channels. Many crimes are never solved, many weapons are never recovered, and recovered firearms do not represent the full universe of criminal misuse.
Nor do these laws explain what additional “reasonable controls” manufacturers could realistically implement beyond the extensive web of existing federal and state regulations. Under FIRA, compliance appears to be defined retroactively—whatever a future plaintiff or regulator claims should have been done.
Blame-shifting has long been central to the anti-gun agenda. When criminals act, responsibility is shifted to manufacturers, retailers, advocacy organizations, and lawful gun owners.
Illinois shows what happens when that approach goes unchecked. As 2026 unfolds, these policies are being refined, normalized, and prepared for export. Gun owners nationwide should pay attention—not because Illinois is unique, but because it is being used as the model.
