Gun Maker Sues to Block L.A.’s Assault Rifle Law

Colt Industries Inc., manufacturer of the AR-15 assault rifle, filed suit Monday seeking to block enforcement of a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting the sale and possession of semiautomatic weapons.

The well-known gun manufacturer said the new ordinance, aimed at controlling criminal use of rapid-firing military-style rifles such as the AR-15, is “wildly over-broad” and likely to cause widespread confusion and heavy financial losses for gun owners and distributors.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Colt attorneys predicted the ordinance would cost the company $350,000 a year in AR-15 sales and place Colt “at odds” with its own retailers in liability disputes over who must pay for weapons already ordered for distribution in Los Angeles.

“The tension and uncertainty resulting from such criminal regulation is disrupting Colt’s marketing network in Los Angeles and its established trade reputation, and is also contrary to the public interest,” the suit alleges.

The company also argues it is unfair to force citizens to turn in the weapons, which cost $750 to $1,000, when there is the possibility that the ordinance will be overturned by the courts. “Forcing the citizens of Los Angeles to make a choice between the risk of criminal liability and the likely loss of lawful property cannot be in the public interest,” Colt lawyers said.

Colt Firearms, based in Hartford, Conn., sells an estimated $1.5 million to $2 million a year in firearms in Los Angeles. The company is best known as the manufacturer of the Colt .45 revolver, known through the years as “the gun that won the West.”

U.S. District Judge William P. Gray scheduled a hearing Wednesday morning on the company’s request for a temporary restraining order that would block enforcement of the ordinance. The company ultimately is seeking a declaration that the ordinance is an unconstitutional intrusion into an area of regulation preempted by the state.

City Council members unanimously adopted the ordinance Feb. 7 in response to the increasing use of assault rifles in gang shootings. Patrick Edward Purdy, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, killed five schoolchildren and injured 29 others in Stockton last month, prompting a number of legislative attempts to ban such weapons across the state.

The ordinance imposed an immediate ban on sale of the weapons and makes it a crime to possess them as of Feb. 22. Those violating the new law face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Harry G. Melkonian, attorney for Colt, said the regulation of firearms is clearly an area within the jurisdiction of the state, not individual cities.

“The problem with this kind of local ordinance is it creates a kind of chaotic situation,” Melkonian said. “You could go to Pasadena and legally buy a semiautomatic firearm, and if you live in Culver City, you can legally keep it in your home. The problem is for you to drive on the Santa Monica Freeway; under the ordinance, you’d be commiting a crime.”

The gun manufacturer, he said, is not seeking to argue that semiautomatic rifles should not be regulated. “What we’re saying is, it’s being done in an illegal manner. This is an appropriate subject for the state Legislature, or perhaps for Congress, but not for the City Council.”

Deputy City Atty. Henry Morris would not comment on the allegations in the suit, but said city officials reviewed the legality of the ordinance before it was adopted.

“Our position is that we don’t believe that the area is preempted (by the state), at least we believe a reasonable argument can be made that the particular regulation under consideration, the regulation of possession or sale of semiautomatic weapons, is not an area covered under state law or preempted by state law,” Morris said.

In the lawsuit, the gun manufacturer said that shipments of more than $100,000 worth of AR-15s along with other, still-legal weapons are already en route to distributors in Los Angeles, although the ordinance now prohibits dealers from receiving the merchandise.

Distributors now face the option of either breaching their sales contracts with Colt or being in criminal violation of the ordinance, the lawsuit contends.