The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split decision Tuesday in a closely watched case against multiple major gun manufacturers, partially reversing a lower court ruling while vacating other portions in *Lowy v. Daniel Defense, LLC*.
The appeals court ruled on claims brought by Karen Lowy, individually and as parent and next friend of N.T., along with Antonio Harris against a sweeping array of firearms companies including Daniel Defense LLC, Magpul Industries Corp., Federal Cartridge Company, and more than a dozen other manufacturers and accessory companies.
Judge Roger Gregory wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Andre Davis, while Judge Allison Jones Rushing authored a dissenting opinion. The court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The case originated from two consolidated lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Virginia before Senior District Judge Claude Hilton. The district court had previously ruled against the plaintiffs, prompting the appeal that was argued before the Fourth Circuit in October 2025.
The lawsuit named an extensive list of defendants spanning the firearms industry supply chain. Beyond the primary defendant Daniel Defense LLC, the case targeted accessory manufacturers including FAB Defense Inc., Bravo Company USA Inc., and Loyal 9 Manufacturing LLC. Ammunition companies Federal Cartridge Company, Vista Outdoor Inc., and Fiocchi of America Inc. were also named as defendants, along with component manufacturers like Magpul Industries Corp. and SureFire LLC.
The case drew significant attention from advocacy organizations on both sides of the gun debate. Supporting the appellants were major gun safety organizations including Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Global Action on Gun Violence.
On the opposing side, prominent gun rights organizations filed amicus briefs supporting the manufacturer defendants. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Rifle Association of America, Safari Club International, and Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation all submitted briefs defending the industry position.
The legal arguments centered on fundamental questions about firearms industry liability and the scope of protections available to gun manufacturers under federal law. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress in 2005, generally shields gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used in crimes, but contains several exceptions that plaintiffs often attempt to invoke.
The Fourth Circuit's mixed ruling suggests the court found merit in some of the plaintiffs' arguments while rejecting others. The decision to reverse portions of the district court's ruling indicates the appeals court disagreed with some aspects of Judge Hilton's analysis, while the vacated portions suggest procedural or substantive issues that require further consideration by the lower court.
The remand order sends the case back to the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings consistent with the Fourth Circuit's opinion. This means the litigation will continue, potentially leading to additional discovery, motions practice, or even trial on the claims that survived the appeals court's review.
Elizabeth Catherine Lockwood of Ali & Lockwood LLP in Washington, D.C., argued for the appellants before the Fourth Circuit. The manufacturer defendants were represented by Brian Wesley Barnes of Cooper & Kirk PLLC, also based in Washington, D.C.
The case represents part of a broader legal strategy by gun safety advocates to hold firearms manufacturers accountable through civil litigation. Similar lawsuits have been filed across the country, with varying degrees of success depending on the specific legal theories advanced and the factual circumstances of each case.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, making this decision potentially influential for future firearms litigation in those states. The court's published opinion means it will serve as binding precedent for district courts within the circuit and persuasive authority for other courts considering similar issues.
The ruling comes at a time when gun violence remains a contentious political and legal issue nationwide. Legislative efforts to address gun violence have stalled in Congress, leading advocates to pursue alternative strategies through the court system and state-level initiatives.
The split decision reflects the complex legal and factual issues involved in firearms liability cases. Courts must balance the rights of shooting victims and their families to seek compensation against the protections Congress provided to lawful firearms manufacturers through federal legislation.
With the case now remanded for further proceedings, both sides will likely continue their legal battle in the district court. The ultimate resolution of the case could take months or years, depending on the scope of the remanded issues and whether any party seeks further appellate review.
The February 11, 2026 decision marks a significant development in ongoing efforts to establish manufacturer liability for gun violence through the federal court system.