Posted on 09/25/2002 7:15:55 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
California Gov. Gray Davis signed a package of new gun control bills Wednesday, including the first state law in the nation to strip gunmakers of a key legal shield against liability lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence.
"No industry should be allowed to hide from its own harmful conduct, and except for gun manufacturers, no industry is," Davis said in a statement. "Current laws shield a gun manufacturer from its own negligence. These new laws strip away that shield."
Davis, a Democrat who faces reelection in November, had previously vowed to go slow on new gun control legislation after signing a raft of gun control measures during his first year in office.
But he said Wednesday that the new laws were an important step toward making California's gun safety laws -- already the toughest in the nation -- even stronger.
"A LEGAL EARTHQUAKE"
Gun control advocates hailed the new laws as a "legal earthquake" for the gun industry, which has come under legal attack in recent years by plaintiffs seeking to blame it for America's epidemic of gun violence.
"Gun makers are going to face judgement day," said Luis Tolley, California spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"They will no longer be able to hide from the courts and escape legal accountability when they engage in dangerous and irresponsible conduct that hurts and kills people."
The centerpiece of Wednesday's legislation was a bill repealing a 1983 state law which has protected gun makers against certain liability claims for damage caused by criminals wielding their weapons.
Spurred by a lawsuit brought by survivors of a 1993 San Francisco office massacre, in which a gunman murdered eight people with a TEC-9 assault pistol, Davis' repeal overrides a 2001 decision by California's state Supreme Court which upheld the legality of the 1983 immunity law.
Gun control advocates had accused the maker of the TEC-9, Miami-based Navegar, Inc., with criminal negligence, saying it had manufactured and marketed the weapon specifically to appeal to potential killers by touting its "fingerprint resistance" and massive firepower.
A HIGHER STANDARD?
Gun manufacturers, who lobbied hard against the California bill, say they are already subject to existing product liability laws covering everything from defective products to negligent sales practices.
Now, they say, they will be held to a higher standard than other manufacturing industries -- liable for criminal misuse of legal products that are not in themselves defective.
"Some products, knives and firearms for example, must by their very nature be dangerous in order to function. The mere fact of injury does not entitle the injured person to recover from the manufacturer," Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, said in a recent letter to Davis urging him not to override the 1983 shield law.
"Repealing (the law) will result in California courts being flooded with exactly the kinds of cases the statute was intended to prevent -- lawsuits seeking to (hold) manufacturers of legal, non-defective firearms responsible for criminal shootings."
Other elements of the gun control package signed Wednesday included a law which adds city attorneys to the list of officials who have access to handgun registration information compiled by the Department of Justice.
Pretty depressing sentiments. But, I think I have to second that and give it a "d@#n straight."
Now go and join, gunowners.
Well, I'm always looking for a good reason to buy another gun, but my better half thinks we have a lot more than we need now. I tell her that need has nothing to do with it, just wanting another one is good enough reason. That seldom works though.
Actually you make a good point. If the manufacturers have to fight CA lawsuits they will have to raise prices, maybe even drastically raise them. That will mean that a quality gun you buy now will probably be worth considerably more later than you paid today if it's well cared for. You can't say that about equity stocks with any certainty, and you sure can't say that about money in a bank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.