Assault Gun Maker Not Liable for Killings

The California Supreme Court tells gunshot victims (and their survivors) that they cannot sue gun manufacturers for injuries done to them by someone using one of their weapons (Aug. 7)--even if that gun is a rapid-fire assault weapon carrying 32 rounds and easily convertible to fully automatic fire. No claim of negligence will be allowed against any gun manufacturer. No product liability claim will be allowed either. The court said the California Legislature spoke on the matter and that is that.

You say you are the survivor of a massacre? You say you were injured in an armed robbery? You say you are the heir of a loved one cut down by some street thug carrying an assault weapon? Well, tough luck. No relief is available to you.

Of course, all potential criminals, psychopaths and anti-government paranoid nut cases, as well as others, should be warned that possession of the gun in question, the TEC-DC9, is illegal in California. But this is easily gotten around. Just do what the late Gian Luigi Ferri did. Go to Nevada to pick up your weapon. Then come back to California. Who needs the NRA anyway? Here in California we have our Supreme Court.

Carl W. Goss

Los Angeles

I wish someone could explain the difference to me about manufacturers’ responsibilities: A man takes up smoking voluntarily, without force by the cigarette maker, gets cancer and sues the tobacco company and gets awarded $3 billion. The California Supreme Court rules that a person buys a gun voluntarily, without force from the gun maker, and uses that gun in a murder, but the gun maker cannot be sued by the murdered person’s family.

Please explain the difference between a cigarette maker and a gun maker. I am an ex-smoker and didn’t blame cigarette companies for my addiction.

Ray Garnett

Santa Clarita