(Headline USA) Some Democratic California lawmakers are pushing to make it easier for people to sue gun companies for liability in shootings that cause injuries or deaths.
Advocates said Tuesday that the move is aimed at getting around a U.S. law that prevents such lawsuits and allows the industry to act recklessly.
But critics call the bill an illegal overreach and say its true purpose is to force gun manufacturers out of business.
Either way, it appears to be the first of many attempts to mimic Texas’s recent “heartbeat” law, which similarly sought to deter abortions by creating civil liability for their providers.
That law is now under Supreme Court review, with many speculating that it could prove to be the Achilles’ heel in pro-abortion case law that has withstood legal challenges for the past half-century.
Blue-state governors, including California Democrat Gavin Newsom, openly threatend to borrow the same strategy in order to wage war on constitutionally prescribed rights and civil liberties.
In general, when someone is injured or killed by gunfire it’s very hard for the victim or their family to hold the gun manufacturer or dealer responsible by suing them and making them pay for damages. A federal law prevents most of those types of lawsuits.
But the U.S law does permit some types of liability lawsuits, including when gun-makers break state or local laws regarding the sale and marketing of their products.
Last year, New York approved a first-in-the-nation law declaring such violations a “public nuisance,” opening up gun-makers to lawsuits. That law is currently working its way through the courts.
California Assembly member Phil Ting of San Francisco unveiled a similar bill on Tuesday.
“Almost every industry in the U.S. is held liable for what their products do. … The gun industry is the one exception,” Ting claimed. “Financial repercussions may encourage the firearms industry and dealers to be more responsible.”
The bill is co-authored by Assembly members Chris Ward of San Diego and Mike Gipson of Carson.
Gipson’s son, his son’s fiancé and another man were shot in Los Angeles in April 2020. Gipson’s son and fiancé survived. But the other man, Gary Patrick Moody, was killed.
“This is absolutely personal to me,” said Gipson, a former police officer.
Gun advocates quickly denounced the bill, known as AB 1594, as a smokescreen for another attempt by California radicals to ban guns.
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, compared it to suing Newsom because he owns a winery and people have misused his products by drinking and driving.
“He can’t ban guns, but he’s going to try to bankrupt lawful firearms-related businesses,” Paredes said.
California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, including a longstanding ban on most so-called assault weapons. But last year, a federal judge overturned California’s ‘assault weapons’ ban, prompting a lengthy appeals process.
Angered by the move, Newsom last month asked the state Legislature to pass a law allowing citizens to enforce the state’s assault weapons ban through lawsuits. The idea is similar to Texas’s heartbeat law in that it leaves it up to private citizens to enforce the law by taking offenders to court.
The bill announced on Tuesday would not do that. Instead, Ting said it would let people and governments sue gun manufacturers or dealers for liability in shooting deaths or injuries. That’s a key distinction from the Texas abortion law, which is only enforceable by private lawsuits.
It’s unclear what these potential lawsuits against gun makers could include. The bill filed in the state Legislature is just one sentence long, declaring gun manufacturers have created a public nuisance if their failure to follow state and local gun laws result in injury or death. The bill will likely be changed several times as it moves through the legislative process.
Tanya Schardt, senior counsel for gun control group the Brady Campaign, said lawsuits could include suing gun dealers who knowingly sell weapons to people who then sell them illegally to others who are not allowed to own them. Or it could mean suing a gun manufacturer that supplies dealers they know are selling guns used in crimes.
The goal is to “create an environment where the gun industry is held accountable,” Schardt said.
Chuck Michel, a civil rights attorney and president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said that goal will likely backfire by making it harder for law-abiding citizens to have guns for self-defense.
“As a matter of policy, to try and shift the blame for the criminal misuse of a lawful product that is used far more often to save lives and protect lives than to take them is a terrible idea,” he said.
Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press
