Direct Hit on Gun Makers
A bold ruling by a state appeals court has provided a clear choice for gun makers: They can either exercise responsibility over their advertising and sales or they can expect to spend a lot more time in court.
Wednesday’s decision by the District Court of Appeal in San Francisco held that gun makers can be sued for promoting their products to people who use them in crimes. The case arose from a bloody 1993 rampage in San Francisco. A man armed with semiautomatic assault guns shot up the office of a now-defunct law firm, killing eight and wounding six before he fatally shot himself.
The suit, filed by the victims’ families, alleges that Navegar Inc., the manufacturer of the guns, was negligent in its advertising and should be held liable for damages. The 2-1 ruling, the first decision from any appellate court holding a gun maker liable, permits the case to go forward in a San Francisco court that had previously dismissed it.
The appeals court majority held that the gun industry has a duty to conduct itself in a way that reduces the risk of criminal violence and that Navegar had breached that duty in advertising its TEC-DC9 guns. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony J. Kline lambasted the Florida manufacturer for directing sales toward people with violent tendencies.
The opinion cites testimony from Navegar’s former sales director, who said the “target market” for the TEC-DC9 was “militaristic people,” including the “survivalist community.” He acknowledged being “kind of flattered” at news reports that the gun had been used in sensational crimes because it “generated more sales for me.”
Navegar advertised such features as the weapon’s “excellent resistance to fingerprints” and its accommodation of a silencer, features likely to interest criminals.
Kline labeled Navegar’s indifference to the potential criminal use of its weapon precisely what it is, “morally blameworthy conduct,” and held that gun makers can be forced to compensate victims if the manufacturers “create risks above and beyond those citizens may reasonably be expected to bear” in a society where guns are legal. Navegar is likely to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.
The ruling, along with a 1998 verdict in a New York federal court holding handgun makers negligent, should bolster pending lawsuits. More than 20 local governments, including the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, have filed suit in recent months against gun makers. These suits all seek similar goals: safer gun designs and more responsible marketing.
Gun makers now have a hard choice, similar to that of the tobacco companies but without the benefit of Big Tobacco’s deep pockets: make their products safer and take steps to keep their products out of the wrong hands or look forward to big legal fees and big payouts in lawsuits.
