http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990929/ts/guns_ruling_1.html
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In a decision that gun control advocates called a major breakthrough, a California appeals court said
Wednesday that victims of a 1993 shooting massacre should be allowed to sue the manufacturer of the guns used in the rampage.
The First District Court of Appeals said the suit should go ahead because it saw no legitimate civilian use for the kind of guns used to kill eight people and wound six
others -- a variation of the TEC-9 type semiautomatic pistol called the TEC-DC9 manufactured by Navegar Inc. of Miami, Fla.
The court said the TEC-DC9 weapon appeared made expressly to appeal to criminals.
``We make no suggestion ... that the manufacture of the TEC-DC9, even with all the features supplying its military combat style and appeal to a criminal element,
alone could be found to constitute negligence,'' Justice J. Anthony Kline said in the court's 2-1 verdict allowing the suit to proceed.
``Rather, it is the combination of such manufacture with distribution of the weapon to the general public and marketing targeted to persons most likely to misuse it
that supports a cause of action for negligence.''
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE SUITS
Jubilant gun control advocates said the decision was an important milestone in the mounting national effort to hold gun manufacturers answerable for crimes
committed with their products.
The TEC-DC9 was most recently in the news when it was revealed that they were among the weapons used by teenage killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in the
April 20 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in which 13 people were killed before the gunmen took their own lives.
``Just as we hold those who pull the trigger accountable, we also must hold accountable those whose conduct put the gun in the hands of the person who did the
shooting,'' Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence said.
``This is the first ruling by an appellate court in any state finding that, under some circumstances a gun manufacturer can be liable for the criminal use of a gun.''
The court's decision revives a case brought against Navegar by the families of those killed and wounded in the July 1, 1993 shooting at 101 California Street in San
Francisco.
Wielding two Navegar TEC-DC9 pistols, gunman Gian Luigi Ferri stormed a law firm with a hail of bullets, killing eight people and wounding six others before killing
himself.
Lawyers for Navegar argued that the gunmaker should not be punished for criminal acts committed after its guns are legally sold. Ferri bought the pistols in Nevada,
where their sale was legal, and brought them to California, where they were banned.
A spokesman for Navegar was not immediately available for comment.
In 1997, a lower court judge agreed and dismissed civil lawsuits against Navegar, saying he saw no legal precedent for the case. But Wednesday the state appeals
court overruled him, saying there were grounds for a suit because Navegar's marketing of the TEC-DC9 may have intentionally boosted the chances that the guns
would fall into the hands of a killer.
``It is therefore for a jury to make the ultimate determination whether Navegar's conduct was or was not reasonably prudent,'' Kline wrote, saying such a decision
would constitute the ``ultimate value judgement'' on the rights and responsibilities of gunmakers when marketing their products.
DISSENTING JUDGE DECRIES DECISION
The dissenting judge, Paul Haerle, slammed the majority opinion as ``an egregious exercise in judicial legislation'' that was simultaneously ``flawed, radical and
confusing.''
``I not only share the majority's obvious distaste for the people who design, manufacture and market (TEC-9 guns). I am also bewildered regarding the mental
processes of those who purchase them. But I am simply unwilling to transpose these personal opinions into judicial doctrine,'' Haerle wrote.
The California case had marked the first of its kind in the nation brought by shooting victims against an assault-weapons manufacturer, attorneys said.
Since then, however, many U.S. cities including San Francisco have launched suits against the gun industry seeking to recoup hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent
treating gunfire victims and investigating gun-related crimes.
The TEC-DC9 is a new version of the old TEC-9 weapon that long has been associated with violent crime.
In 1994, manufacture of the TEC-9 was outlawed. But tens of thousands of the pistols remain in circulation and new versions such as the TEC-DC9 continue to be
produced.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In a decision that gun control advocates called a major breakthrough, a California appeals court said
Wednesday that victims of a 1993 shooting massacre should be allowed to sue the manufacturer of the guns used in the rampage.
The First District Court of Appeals said the suit should go ahead because it saw no legitimate civilian use for the kind of guns used to kill eight people and wound six
others -- a variation of the TEC-9 type semiautomatic pistol called the TEC-DC9 manufactured by Navegar Inc. of Miami, Fla.
The court said the TEC-DC9 weapon appeared made expressly to appeal to criminals.
``We make no suggestion ... that the manufacture of the TEC-DC9, even with all the features supplying its military combat style and appeal to a criminal element,
alone could be found to constitute negligence,'' Justice J. Anthony Kline said in the court's 2-1 verdict allowing the suit to proceed.
``Rather, it is the combination of such manufacture with distribution of the weapon to the general public and marketing targeted to persons most likely to misuse it
that supports a cause of action for negligence.''
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE SUITS
Jubilant gun control advocates said the decision was an important milestone in the mounting national effort to hold gun manufacturers answerable for crimes
committed with their products.
The TEC-DC9 was most recently in the news when it was revealed that they were among the weapons used by teenage killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in the
April 20 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in which 13 people were killed before the gunmen took their own lives.
``Just as we hold those who pull the trigger accountable, we also must hold accountable those whose conduct put the gun in the hands of the person who did the
shooting,'' Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence said.
``This is the first ruling by an appellate court in any state finding that, under some circumstances a gun manufacturer can be liable for the criminal use of a gun.''
The court's decision revives a case brought against Navegar by the families of those killed and wounded in the July 1, 1993 shooting at 101 California Street in San
Francisco.
Wielding two Navegar TEC-DC9 pistols, gunman Gian Luigi Ferri stormed a law firm with a hail of bullets, killing eight people and wounding six others before killing
himself.
Lawyers for Navegar argued that the gunmaker should not be punished for criminal acts committed after its guns are legally sold. Ferri bought the pistols in Nevada,
where their sale was legal, and brought them to California, where they were banned.
A spokesman for Navegar was not immediately available for comment.
In 1997, a lower court judge agreed and dismissed civil lawsuits against Navegar, saying he saw no legal precedent for the case. But Wednesday the state appeals
court overruled him, saying there were grounds for a suit because Navegar's marketing of the TEC-DC9 may have intentionally boosted the chances that the guns
would fall into the hands of a killer.
``It is therefore for a jury to make the ultimate determination whether Navegar's conduct was or was not reasonably prudent,'' Kline wrote, saying such a decision
would constitute the ``ultimate value judgement'' on the rights and responsibilities of gunmakers when marketing their products.
DISSENTING JUDGE DECRIES DECISION
The dissenting judge, Paul Haerle, slammed the majority opinion as ``an egregious exercise in judicial legislation'' that was simultaneously ``flawed, radical and
confusing.''
``I not only share the majority's obvious distaste for the people who design, manufacture and market (TEC-9 guns). I am also bewildered regarding the mental
processes of those who purchase them. But I am simply unwilling to transpose these personal opinions into judicial doctrine,'' Haerle wrote.
The California case had marked the first of its kind in the nation brought by shooting victims against an assault-weapons manufacturer, attorneys said.
Since then, however, many U.S. cities including San Francisco have launched suits against the gun industry seeking to recoup hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent
treating gunfire victims and investigating gun-related crimes.
The TEC-DC9 is a new version of the old TEC-9 weapon that long has been associated with violent crime.
In 1994, manufacture of the TEC-9 was outlawed. But tens of thousands of the pistols remain in circulation and new versions such as the TEC-DC9 continue to be
produced.