(Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, January 19, 2026)
What’s moving quietly through these conservative legislatures is a bill aimed at cell phone and tablet manufacturers, holding them civilly liable if a minor accesses harmful content on a device. On the surface, it’s marketed as a “child‑protection” measure. But beneath the surface, it creates the exact legal framework that anti‑gun states have been trying to build for years: the power to sue a manufacturer for the misuse of a lawful product.
That should set off alarm bells for every gun owner in America.
If a Republican legislature can be convinced to punish a company because a parent didn’t supervise their child’s phone use, then the legal argument becomes painfully simple for blue states: If Idaho can sue Apple for what someone does with an iPhone, why can’t New York sue Smith & Wesson for what a criminal does with a gun?
And make no mistake, they already are.
Minnesota recently went after major car manufacturers because thieves were stealing certain models too easily. The state’s argument? The companies didn’t implement “adequate anti‑theft measures.” New York has used similar theories to target energy companies. And anti‑gun states have been trying to sue firearm manufacturers for years, claiming they should be responsible for crimes committed by third parties.
This cell‑phone bill hands them the missing puzzle piece: a red‑state‑approved precedent.
Once a conservative legislature embraces the idea that a manufacturer can be held liable for the actions of someone who misuses a product, the political and legal shield around the firearms industry weakens. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is already under constant attack. Blue states are passing “work‑around” laws to undermine it. They’re looking for cracks, and this bill creates one.
Gun owners need to understand what’s really happening here. This isn’t about smartphones. It’s about establishing a liability theory that can be repurposed, expanded, and weaponized.
If a Republican state normalizes the idea that a company must “design away” all possible misuse, then the next logical step for anti‑gun states is obvious: demand that gun manufacturers do the same. And when they inevitably argue that no design can eliminate criminal misuse, the lawsuits begin.
This is why vigilance matters. Not every threat to the Second Amendment arrives wearing the label “gun control.” Sometimes it shows up dressed as a child‑safety bill, quietly rewriting the rules of liability while no one is paying attention.
Gun owners in red states cannot afford to sleep on this one. The stakes are far bigger than smartphones.
