In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
CA: More on the 'gun liability' bill that passed t
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Gun makers could be held liable for irresponsible marketing and weapons design under a measure passed Wednesday by the state Senate and backed by gun-control groups.
The proposal, AB 496, would overturn a 1983 law that immunizes manufacturers against certain liability claims when their weapons cause harm.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, author of AB 496, said he intends to prevent manufacturers from blatantly marketing their weapons to murderers, as was alleged of a manufacturer in a 2001 court case.
"I feel that if they're begging for their guns to be used in criminal activities, they should be held responsible," Koretz said. "Right now, no matter how egregious (the actions of ) gun manufacturers are, they're protected in a way no other manufacturers are protected."
The court case involved victims of a 1993 San Francisco office-tower rampage in which Gian Luigi Ferri killed eight and injured six before committing suicide. Ferri used a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic weapon whose defunct manufacturer, Florida-based Navegar Inc., was alleged to have promoted firearms to criminals in advertisements.
The victims pointed to Navegar literature that said the TEC-DC9 had "excellent resistance to fingerprints" and was "tough as your toughest customer." They said such statements were negligent acts for which the company should be held responsible.
The court last year rebuked Navegar's promotional language, but ruled in its favor, citing the 1983 state law that says gun makers are not liable in such cases.
Koretz introduced his proposal two weeks later in a direct attempt to rescind the law, although it would have no effect on the Navegar case.
It is unlikely that the bill, should it become law, would affect lawsuits already filed against gun manufacturers by several California cities and counties, including the city of Sacramento. Those pending cases raise different issues, including manufacturers' failure to provide adequate safety warnings.
Former Democratic Assemblyman Alister McAlister wrote the 19-year-old statute to prevent an anticipated flood of lawsuits against gun manufacturers at the time. McAlister, now a Sacramento lobbyist, still believes in his law and is opposing Koretz's bill as an individual.
"Does anyone really believe that if the murderer in that (San Francisco) case (hadn't) bought a Navegar gun, he wouldn't have committed murder?" McAlister asked. "A crazy person who wants to commit murder won't have any problems finding a weapon."
Senate Republicans argued as much during Wednesday's debate.
Sen. Ray Haynes, R-Riverside, said, "It's the nut behind the trigger that causes the damage, not the gun itself."
Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, said automobiles are as dangerous as guns, yet automakers are not held liable on the basis that their product is inherently harmful.
"If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, there is no object in our society that is safe to use, own or sell," he said.
But Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, who has a measure identical to AB 496 awaiting passage in the Assembly, said the Koretz proposal is "not in my mind about taking anybody's gun away from them." He said it only removes an immunity exemption created for gun makers in the McAlister law that they should not have.
With the Senate's 22-13 passage of AB 496, the measure moved back to the Assembly, its final hurdle before reaching Gov. Gray Davis.
Davis has not yet taken a position on the measure, said spokesman Russ Lopez. The Democratic governor, once a Los Angeles assemblyman, voted against the McAlister bill in 1983.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/3988427p-5014040c.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The proposal, AB 496, would overturn a 1983 law that immunizes manufacturers against certain liability claims when their weapons cause harm.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, author of AB 496, said he intends to prevent manufacturers from blatantly marketing their weapons to murderers, as was alleged of a manufacturer in a 2001 court case.
"I feel that if they're begging for their guns to be used in criminal activities, they should be held responsible," Koretz said. "Right now, no matter how egregious (the actions of ) gun manufacturers are, they're protected in a way no other manufacturers are protected."
The court case involved victims of a 1993 San Francisco office-tower rampage in which Gian Luigi Ferri killed eight and injured six before committing suicide. Ferri used a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic weapon whose defunct manufacturer, Florida-based Navegar Inc., was alleged to have promoted firearms to criminals in advertisements.
The victims pointed to Navegar literature that said the TEC-DC9 had "excellent resistance to fingerprints" and was "tough as your toughest customer." They said such statements were negligent acts for which the company should be held responsible.
The court last year rebuked Navegar's promotional language, but ruled in its favor, citing the 1983 state law that says gun makers are not liable in such cases.
Koretz introduced his proposal two weeks later in a direct attempt to rescind the law, although it would have no effect on the Navegar case.
It is unlikely that the bill, should it become law, would affect lawsuits already filed against gun manufacturers by several California cities and counties, including the city of Sacramento. Those pending cases raise different issues, including manufacturers' failure to provide adequate safety warnings.
Former Democratic Assemblyman Alister McAlister wrote the 19-year-old statute to prevent an anticipated flood of lawsuits against gun manufacturers at the time. McAlister, now a Sacramento lobbyist, still believes in his law and is opposing Koretz's bill as an individual.
"Does anyone really believe that if the murderer in that (San Francisco) case (hadn't) bought a Navegar gun, he wouldn't have committed murder?" McAlister asked. "A crazy person who wants to commit murder won't have any problems finding a weapon."
Senate Republicans argued as much during Wednesday's debate.
Sen. Ray Haynes, R-Riverside, said, "It's the nut behind the trigger that causes the damage, not the gun itself."
Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, said automobiles are as dangerous as guns, yet automakers are not held liable on the basis that their product is inherently harmful.
"If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, there is no object in our society that is safe to use, own or sell," he said.
But Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, who has a measure identical to AB 496 awaiting passage in the Assembly, said the Koretz proposal is "not in my mind about taking anybody's gun away from them." He said it only removes an immunity exemption created for gun makers in the McAlister law that they should not have.
With the Senate's 22-13 passage of AB 496, the measure moved back to the Assembly, its final hurdle before reaching Gov. Gray Davis.
Davis has not yet taken a position on the measure, said spokesman Russ Lopez. The Democratic governor, once a Los Angeles assemblyman, voted against the McAlister bill in 1983.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/3988427p-5014040c.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878