Message for Gun Makers

Cities suing handgun manufacturers to recover some of the millions in public costs exacted by gun violence can only be encouraged by the verdict of a Brooklyn federal jury against the firearms industry. The decision is also welcome to many gunshot victims and their families.

For the first time, the gun makers were held legally responsible for crimes committed with their products. Though the defendants said they will appeal if trial judge Jack Weinstein refuses to overturn the verdict, a significant precedent has been set. The gun companies, as one law professor put it, “are no longer invincible.” What one jury has done could well be repeated by others.

The Brooklyn case, a civil suit brought by the families of seven gunshot victims, was unusually complex and produced an ambiguous compromise verdict. The jury found for only one surviving but badly injured victim. Because of the way damages were apportioned among the defendants, that victim’s initial $4-million award was reduced to $520,000. But if the actual cost to the gun makers is small, the loss they face from other suits in the wake of this watershed verdict could be enormous. The industry now faces a flood of litigation, and a spokesman for one of its trade groups admits “we’re worried.”

The jurors’ key finding was that some of the manufacturers failed to properly supervise how their guns were distributed to retailers. That negligence allowed guns to pass into the hands of criminals. In establishing the principle of a manufacturer’s responsibility after a gun leaves the factory, the verdict serves notice that gun makers must exercise continuing oversight on the distribution and sales of their weapons. That won’t stop guns from being used to commit crimes, but it should make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns.

A courtroom is not, of course, the best place to try to impose reasonable restrictions on how guns are marketed and distributed. That is rightly the province of legislatures. The problem is that Congress and most state legislatures, under great pressure from the well-financed gun lobby, have failed to face up to their regulatory obligations. The Brooklyn case isn’t likely to embolden legislatures. But gun makers now face the prospect of years of costly litigation because they have done too little to keep their guns out of criminal hands. That prospect may well force far greater self-regulation by the industry. It would be about time.