Judge rules that synagogue shooting victims can sue gunmaker

[AndyS]

A California judge decided victims of a 2019 synagogue shooting near San Diego that killed one worshiper and wounded three can sue the manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle and the gun shop that sold it to the teenage gunman, according to a newspaper report.

Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel said Wednesday that victims and families in the Poway, California, synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation's largest gunmaker, knew its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of state law.

A 2005 federal law shields gunmakers from damages in most cases for crimes committed with their weapons. But it allows lawsuits if the manufacturer was negligent or knowingly violated a state or federal law, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday.
Medel said the plaintiffs in the synagogue shooting case may also be able to sue on their claims that Smith & Wesson negligently marketed the rifle to youths on social media and video game-style ads, the newspaper said.

The judge also said the shop, San Diego Guns, could be sued for selling the weapon to John Earnest, who was 19 and lacked a hunting license that would have exempted him from California's 21-year minimum age for owning long guns.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-synagogue-shooting-sue-gun-maker-smith-wesson/

There is something inherently wrong with a society in which the headline isn't about the civil and legal recourse awarded to victims of a mass shooting AFFORDED BY LAW but about the ABILITY OF THE VICTIMS TO SEEK IT.




WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?

When will we call out those who willfully seek to allow the status quo to continue for the profit of an industry dedicated to death and misery?

[mucifer]

1. the supreme court will probably back the gun manufacturers

[WarGamer]

15. Without a doubt.

[Kingofalldems]

2. Here come the gunners.....

[spanone]

3. K&R...

[gratuitous]

4. "We don't need more gun laws, we need to enforce the laws on the books!"

Okay, here's a gun dealer who should be compelled to explain why he sold that rifle to a 19 year old. In this case, he'll be liable for civil (monetary) damages. It would be even more effective if he faced some kind of criminal sanction (like jail time) for the murders he facilitated.

[AllaN01Bear]

9. do these dealers have licenses to sell these things? revoke them.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Well said! Right there with you on this. K&R n/t

[Hoyt]

6. They should definitely have the right to sue. Gun profiteers pay big bucks to lobbying organizations

like the NRA to spread lies, attempt to buy legislators, promote buying gunz, run ads like the one below, promote violence, etc. Heck, yeah, there are grounds for lawsuits.

?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

[KS Toronado]

7. 50 years ago that ad would have had a picture of a Corvette

instead of an automatic weapon.

[AllaN01Bear]

8. i always thought we had the right to sue almost any one ? who am i?

[AndyS]

10. Google PLCAA. It's a law that exempts gun makers, distributors, importers and sellers from any

civil responsibility for damage cause by their product. There are very narrow exemptions to the protections but it's pretty much a get out of responsibility free card.

NO OTHER PRODUCT is afforded such protection.

[YMB]

11. You can still sue gun makers

assuming those products have faults with them resulting in injury and the like when they shouldnt have (like a safety not engaging properly). Allowing people to sue item makers based on the intentions of those who used them nefariously opens up a whole other can of worms.

[AndyS]

12. So why is it allowed for EVERY OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT IN THE U.S.?

Who said all suits are nefarious? Why do you use such words?

What makes guns so special?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. This will be fun to watch

[AndyS]

14. I'm setting a google search like the one I have for the Sandy Hook trial. nt