While most gun owners respect everyone’s First Amendment rights as much as their Second Amendment rights, let’s face it, it doesn’t always work the other way around. In fact, as we’re seeing on a lot of college campuses in the United States right now, activism is often the work of spoiled people with too much time on their hands and little true understanding of what they are advocating for. In reality, they are quite simply: annoying AF. Such is the case with activist shareholders as well, rich people or organizations who buy stock in a company so they can wreck it from the inside because they don’t like what the company is all about. Such was the recent case with Smith & Wesson.

Last week, a Clark County (Nevada) District Court judge dismissed a lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit, initiated by anti-gun activist shareholders within Smith & Wesson, was aimed at curtailing the production of AR-15 style rifles, AWR Hawkins over at Breitbart News reported.

The suit, filed by groups including the Adrian Dominican Sisters and Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia (two organizations of what amounts to social activist nuns) alleged that Smith & Wesson’s board members and senior management exposed the company to potential legal liabilities by manufacturing and marketing AR-15s and similar firearms (kind of what the whole company is all about). Despite these claims, the plaintiffs even recognized that firearm companies are generally shielded under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) but wanted to push forward anyway. That is until a judge ordered them to pay a bond to see the case through.

On May 6, 2024, Judge Joe Hardy ruled in favor of Smith & Wesson, pointing out the plaintiffs’ failure to meet a court-ordered requirement to post a $500,000 bond necessary to proceed with their case. The plaintiffs apparently didn’t mind wasting everyone else’s time and money to pursue a frivolous case, but when it was put up or shut up themselves lacked the half million-dollar commitment. Fortunately, the judge saw through this, his decision underscoring the judicial system’s recognition of lawful firearm manufacturing and the importance of adhering to legal standards in corporate governance.

Breitbart News, which followed the lawsuit closely, reported that the court found no “substantial likelihood” of liability on the part of Smith & Wesson, indicating that the shareholder activists were clearly not acting in the best interest of the company. This ruling reaffirms the strength of legal protections afforded to gun manufacturers under federal law, ensuring that responsible companies can continue to support law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights and provide them with products that are manufactured with quality and meet the highest performance standards.

The dismissal of this case in Nevada’s Clark County is a reminder of the legal robustness supporting the firearms industry and its alignment with American constitutional rights.