AMA Backs Making Gun Makers Pay for Criminal Misuse
The American Medical Association has adopted a policy calling on firearm manufacturers to cover part of the costs tied to gunshot injuries and deaths. The vote came at the AMA House of Delegates meeting this week. It gives national medical muscle to an idea pushed in Illinois by Dr. Anthony Douglas, a surgical resident at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Douglas has campaigned for almost two years for the Responsibility in Firearm Legislation (RIFL) Act. That bill would require gun makers to pay into a state fund based on how often their firearms are recovered in connection with shootings. The AMA policy uses the same basic premise.
Key Details
The facts are straightforward, and they show how far the proposal has traveled from a single doctor’s idea.
- Policy vehicle: The AMA adopted the policy at its House of Delegates meeting in the week of November 11, 2026.
- Payment trigger: Under the RIFL Act model, a maker’s payment rises with how often its guns turn up in shootings. The trigger is recovery at a crime scene, not a defect.
- Destination of funds: The AMA says the money would support evidence-based violence prevention and services for communities hit hardest by gun violence.
- AMA spokesperson: Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AMA board of trustees, called gun violence a public health crisis. She argued that manufacturers should share responsibility for the costs and that their contributions could fund prevention and firearm safety investment.
- Analogies offered: Supporters at the meeting compared the payments to judgments against tobacco and opioid companies.
- Douglas’s timeline: He has pushed the RIFL Act for nearly two years, and the AMA policy now gives that effort a professional endorsement.
Background
Gun makers already face a federal shield. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, bars most civil suits that seek to hold manufacturers and dealers liable for crimes committed with their products. Plaintiffs have tried to get around that shield through public nuisance claims, and several cities have filed them against makers and dealers. Courts have split on how far those claims can go. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen also changed the framework. It requires states to justify gun regulations by pointing to the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and it gave gun owners a clearer text-and-history test to use in court.
The tobacco and opioid comparison carries real history. The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement required tobacco companies to pay states roughly $206 billion over decades. Opioid makers and distributors later settled with states and localities over claims that they misled doctors and the public about addiction risks. Those cases rested on deception, concealment, and marketing conduct. A lawful, functioning rifle or pistol that a criminal steals or misuses does not fit that pattern.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Start with the price tag. Manufacturers do not absorb a recurring charge like this. They pass it to dealers and buyers through higher sticker prices, and the costs land hardest on budget-conscious buyers who need a first gun for self-defense. Smaller makers and niche manufacturers feel the squeeze first. In Illinois, where a Firearm Owner’s Identification card is required to buy a gun, a per-recovery charge would also raise the cost of the legal firearms that residents already buy under state licensing rules.
The policy also widens the target. A fee based on recovery counts does not ask whether a maker broke a law or sold a defective product. It asks only how often a criminal used one of its guns. That design punishes the lawful majority who own the same models. Watch for the RIFL Act to move through the Illinois legislature and for other states to copy the model. Check your state representatives’ positions on any firearm industry payment bill. Testify when a committee hearing opens, and send written comments to committee members before votes happen. The AMA policy is not law, but advocacy groups use professional endorsements to push bills forward.
DownRange Analysis
Does this survive Bruen? I doubt it. The Court asked whether a modern gun regulation fits the nation’s historical tradition. A levy on the sale of lawful, functioning firearms, scaled to crimes committed by third parties, has no clear historical analogue. Expect challengers to argue that the payment burdens the right to keep and bear arms and effectively punishes lawful commerce that PLCAA already protects. Those arguments have real traction, and a court should take them seriously.
The market implication is simple. Every dollar a maker pays becomes a dollar a customer pays. Gun owners should not wait for a bill to reach the governor’s desk. Right now, track the RIFL Act and any AMA-backed bills in your state. Contact your legislators with specific objections: the payment punishes lawful buyers, the trigger ignores whether a gun was defective, and the policy conflicts with federal law. Support the state gun rights organizations that litigate and lobby on these issues. And if you buy a firearm this year, keep your receipt and your records in order. The fight over who pays for crime is just starting, and the people who show up early shape the outcome.
