CIVIL ACTION-STRAW PURCHASER
SB1535 creates the Straw Purchaser Accountability Act, a new Illinois civil cause of action aimed at people who engage in gun trafficking or who intentionally or negligently transfer firearms, ammunition, or certain firearm accessories to prohibited persons, straw purchasers, or others they know or should know will use the items unlawfully. The bill makes such a transferor civilly liable for later tortious conduct involving the weapon or accessory, including direct, indirect, attempted, or threatened use.
The measure allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover broad relief intended to make them whole, including declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs, compensatory damages for property loss, injury, death, and emotional harm, and punitive damages in cases of intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct. It also establishes a five-year limitations period, a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and a mechanism allowing a State’s Attorney to seek a stay of civil proceedings while related criminal matters are investigated or prosecuted.
If enacted, the bill would add a new standalone civil remedy in Illinois law and expand potential liability for gun traffickers, straw purchasers, and others who unlawfully or negligently supply firearms, ammunition, silencers, mufflers, or laser sight accessories. It would operate alongside existing criminal prohibitions in the Criminal Code of 2012 by tying civil liability to violations or attempted violations of specified firearm offenses, including unlawful sale or delivery, gunrunning, firearms trafficking, and unlawful purchase. The bill also bars double recovery for the same damages under this Act and any other law, and imposes joint and several liability on covered defendants.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be strongly supportive of tougher accountability for illegal firearm transfers, with the sponsor framing the measure as a civil enforcement tool against gun trafficking and straw purchasing. The bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for giving victims and plaintiffs additional avenues for compensation and deterrence. No formal opposition or recorded debate is available in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of liability and the scope of causation. The bill reaches not only intentional conduct but also negligent delivery, and it extends liability for later tortious acts that directly or indirectly involve the transferred item, which could be viewed as expansive by gun rights advocates, retailers, and other firearm sellers. Another likely issue is the bill’s joint and several liability rule and availability of punitive damages, which may raise concerns about exposure for defendants. Supporters would likely emphasize victim compensation and deterrence, while critics may focus on overbreadth, litigation risk, and overlap with existing criminal enforcement.