The Firearms Policy Coalition’s rejection of Sen. John Cornyn’s SHOT Act is more than a policy disagreement—it’s a warning shot across the bow of any lawmaker who thinks the gun-rights community will settle for half-measures dressed up as “bipartisan reform.” By insisting that Congress scrap the bill and instead deliver genuine PLCAA-level protections, FPC is reminding legislators that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was never meant to be a ceiling; it was a floor. The SHOT Act’s narrow carve-outs and vague liability triggers would leave manufacturers and retailers exposed to the same creative, politically motivated lawsuits that nearly bankrupted the industry before PLCAA, effectively turning every mass-shooting press conference into a settlement negotiation.

What makes the pushback especially significant is the timing. With courts increasingly receptive to Bruen-style challenges and public support for the right to keep and bear arms holding steady, the 2A movement has the leverage to demand legislation that actually codifies the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right as “not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules.” Anything less risks normalizing the idea that gun makers can be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products—an argument that, if accepted, could be ported to virtually any consumer product. FPC’s stance therefore isn’t obstructionism; it’s an insistence that Congress either restore the full scope of PLCAA or get out of the way while the courts finish the job.

For grassroots gun owners, the takeaway is straightforward: watch which members treat “SHOT Act” as a talking-point victory and which ones recognize that real reform means eliminating the sue-them-until-they-settle playbook once and for all. The difference will determine whether the industry can keep innovating without a Sword of Damocles hanging over every new product launch.