A Gun Lawsuit With Faces

The families of three children wounded during the Aug. 10, 1999, shooting rampage at the North Valley Jewish Community Center and that of slain postal worker Joseph Ileto have taken their campaign against gun violence directly to gun makers. On Wednesday, the eve of the anniversary of the shootings, the families filed suit against Glock Inc. and other manufacturers of guns allegedly used by or in the possession of the suspect, Buford O. Furrow Jr., on the day of the atrocity. Furrow is awaiting trial.

This legal tactic is not well tested, but then, at one point, neither was the lawsuit campaign against the tobacco industry. On the same day that the families filed their suit, a state appeals court ruled that a Los Angeles Police Department officer wounded during the 1997 North Hollywood bank shootout could not sue the manufacturer of a firearm used by the robbers. But last year in a suit brought by the families of victims of a 1993 rampage in a San Francisco high-rise, another state appeals court held that gun makers could be sued for negligence for promoting their products to people who ultimately used them in crimes.

Joshua Horwitz, one of the activist anti-gun attorneys representing the families who filed suit this week, says their case resembles the San Francisco case as well as public-nuisance cases filed by cities including Los Angeles. What distinguishes the new lawsuit from the cities’ class actions is that it puts names and faces to gun violence--in this case, those of the victims of a crime that had worldwide notoriety.

For the families to be so public, despite their private pain, is courageous. Their resolve sends yet another signal to Congress and state legislators that frustrated Americans want reasonable gun restrictions. It sends a message to gun makers as well, who may yet learn, like the tobacco industry before them, to take a hard look at how they market and distribute their product. If shame doesn’t do it, maybe the attorneys’ bills will.