Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Gun reviewer and attorney James Reeves has been served with a records subpoena connected to the Highland Park lawsuit against Smith & Wesson.
CRS Firearms recently brought attention to the development. Now, documents obtained by GunsAmerica confirm what the plaintiffs want from Reeves and why he believes other firearm creators should pay attention.
The subpoena comes from Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., an Illinois civil lawsuit stemming from the July 4, 2022, Highland Park parade shooting.
Here is the most important distinction: Reeves is not a defendant. The subpoena does not accuse him of committing a crime or causing the shooting. It orders him, as a third party, to produce records that plaintiffs believe may relate to Smith & Wesson’s marketing.
Table of contents
What the Subpoena Actually Demands
The 94-page document directs Reeves to produce responsive records by 5 p.m. Central on Oct. 13, 2026. Its requests generally cover Jan. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2023.
The subpoena contains 11 separate requests. Among other things, it seeks:
- Social-media posts and other content featuring Smith & Wesson M&P firearms or certain semiautomatic rifles
- Communications between Reeves and Smith & Wesson
- Any instructions concerning the content, style, tone or audience of his posts
- Viewer demographics, audience information and web analytics
- Brand-ambassador agreements, contracts and payment records
- Information about firearms or other products Smith & Wesson provided to Reeves
- Records showing whether any social-media account associated with Robert Crimo III interacted with Reeves’ content
The subpoena also defines “Advertisement” broadly. It includes paid or unpaid content and says the term covers “organic non-paid marketing,” including social-media posts published on an individual’s own account.
That language is at the center of Reeves’ concern.
Reeves Warns Other Gun Creators
In his statement on X, Reeves said the subpoena reaches beyond Smith & Wesson and into independent firearm media.
“If a manufacturer sends a journalist or creator a product to independently test, that does not magically transform the resulting review into advertising,” Reeves wrote.
That is the practical question for gun reviewers. Firearm companies regularly send test guns to publications and YouTube channels. Sometimes those arrangements involve sponsorships. Other times, the creator receives a temporary sample and remains free to praise it, criticize it or send it back.
SEE ALSO: S&W Spec Series VI Review: $1,899 EDC Done Right?
Reeves argues that treating all such coverage as corporate advertising could pull independent writers, reviewers and video creators into lawsuits simply because they discussed a lawful product.
He also advised anyone in firearm media who receives a similar subpoena not to ignore it or delete records. Instead, he recommended speaking with an attorney and, when necessary, coordinating with local counsel.
The Case Against Smith & Wesson
The First Amended Complaint was filed by Keely and Jason Roberts, individually and on behalf of their twin sons. The family suffered serious injuries during the Highland Park shooting, which killed seven people and injured 48.
The lawsuit names Smith & Wesson, Bud’s Gun Shop, Red Dot Arms, Robert Crimo III and Crimo’s father as defendants. It separately lists Cybear Interactive, Watauga Group and Clandestine Media Group as “respondents in discovery,” not defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that Smith & Wesson improperly marketed the M&P15 to young men using military imagery, excitement-driven themes and social-media content. They contend that this marketing influenced Crimo’s selection of the rifle.
Those are allegations made by the plaintiffs. They are not established findings by the court.
Reeves believes the case represents an attempt to work around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which generally protects firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for crimes committed by third parties. The law also contains exceptions, and whether the plaintiffs’ marketing claims fit within one of them remains part of the legal fight.
Bottom Line
For now, the documents establish three things.
- Reeves received a broad subpoena.
- It seeks years of content, communications and audience data.
- And its definition of advertising reaches beyond traditional paid promotions.
What the documents do not establish is any connection between the subpoena and YouTube’s firearm-content policies. They also do not make Reeves a defendant or prove that his reviews influenced the Highland Park shooter.
That broader speculation can wait. The confirmed subpoena is already a significant development for anyone producing firearm content online.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.