The survivors and families of victims of a shooting at a California synagogue in 2019 may proceed with a lawsuit filed against the manufacturer of the weapon used in the attack, as well as the gun store that sold it, after a ruling issued by a San Diego judge last week.
San Diego County Superior Court Judge Kenneth J. Medel dismissed manufacturer Smith & Wesson’s assertion that the lawsuit was barred under a law that protects gunmakers from some liability when their products are used for crimes. In a ruling released Wednesday, Medel said the lawsuit demonstrated sufficient negligence on the part of Smith & Wesson in marketing the gun, an assault-style semiautomatic rifle that can be modified to fire automatically.
On April 27, 2019, the last day of Passover, John Earnest allegedly opened fire on members of the Chabad of Poway synagogue. The shooting left Poway resident Lori Kaye, 60, dead, and three injured, including a rabbi and an 8-year-old. Earnest, described in the ruling as “bent on waging war on the worshippers and exterminating the Jewish people,” used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle during the attack, police said.
ADVERTISING
Earnest faces state and federal prosecution on charges of murder and hate crimes, and for alleged civil rights violations.
The lawsuit says Smith & Wesson designed the M&P 15, similar to the popular AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, so it could be easily modified to fire automatically. The lawsuit also says the company used marketing on social media and in advertising, “through videogame-like commercials despite the known risks that young people in that demographic are highly susceptible to that type of advertising and have disproportionately perpetrated mass shooting using similar firearms.”
In addition to naming Smith & Wesson, the ruling says San Diego Guns, the store where Earnest purchased the rifle, can now be sued by the plaintiffs. Earnest was 19 at the time of the shooting and did not have a hunting license exempting him from California’s minimum age of 21 for owning long guns such as the M&P 15.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law in 2005, shields gunmakers from litigation when the weapons they produce are used in criminal acts. It does not, however, apply in cases of negligence or deliberate violations of state laws.
Last week’s ruling is the latest instance of gunmakers facing potential liability when their products are used in large-scale violence. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer of the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle used in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School could be sued by the families of the victims. Twenty-six people died in that attack, including 20 children.
The Las Vegas shooter modified a dozen rifles to shoot like automatic weapons
In April, 2020, a federal judge in Nevada ruled that the manufacturers of the weapons used in the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Musical Festival shooting in Las Vegas would have to face a wrongful-death claim brought by one of the 58 people who died. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon wrote that the family of Carrie Parsons had shown that “the defendant’s AR-15s could be easily modified with bump stocks to shoot automatically, which the shooter did with tragic results. So the [Parsonses] have sufficiently alleged causation.” Gordon ruled that the PLCAA did not bar the wrongful-death claim and referred the case to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said on the Brady Campaign website: “Today’s judgment is a victory, and an important step on the road to justice for the victims of the shooting at Chabad of Poway Synagogue, and all Americans who believe that the gun industry is not above the law. We look forward to proving our case in court, and working to prevent future tragedies.”
San Diego County Superior Court Judge Kenneth J. Medel dismissed manufacturer Smith & Wesson’s assertion that the lawsuit was barred under a law that protects gunmakers from some liability when their products are used for crimes. In a ruling released Wednesday, Medel said the lawsuit demonstrated sufficient negligence on the part of Smith & Wesson in marketing the gun, an assault-style semiautomatic rifle that can be modified to fire automatically.
On April 27, 2019, the last day of Passover, John Earnest allegedly opened fire on members of the Chabad of Poway synagogue. The shooting left Poway resident Lori Kaye, 60, dead, and three injured, including a rabbi and an 8-year-old. Earnest, described in the ruling as “bent on waging war on the worshippers and exterminating the Jewish people,” used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle during the attack, police said.
ADVERTISING
Earnest faces state and federal prosecution on charges of murder and hate crimes, and for alleged civil rights violations.
The lawsuit says Smith & Wesson designed the M&P 15, similar to the popular AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, so it could be easily modified to fire automatically. The lawsuit also says the company used marketing on social media and in advertising, “through videogame-like commercials despite the known risks that young people in that demographic are highly susceptible to that type of advertising and have disproportionately perpetrated mass shooting using similar firearms.”
In addition to naming Smith & Wesson, the ruling says San Diego Guns, the store where Earnest purchased the rifle, can now be sued by the plaintiffs. Earnest was 19 at the time of the shooting and did not have a hunting license exempting him from California’s minimum age of 21 for owning long guns such as the M&P 15.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law in 2005, shields gunmakers from litigation when the weapons they produce are used in criminal acts. It does not, however, apply in cases of negligence or deliberate violations of state laws.
Last week’s ruling is the latest instance of gunmakers facing potential liability when their products are used in large-scale violence. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer of the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle used in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School could be sued by the families of the victims. Twenty-six people died in that attack, including 20 children.
The Las Vegas shooter modified a dozen rifles to shoot like automatic weapons
In April, 2020, a federal judge in Nevada ruled that the manufacturers of the weapons used in the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Musical Festival shooting in Las Vegas would have to face a wrongful-death claim brought by one of the 58 people who died. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon wrote that the family of Carrie Parsons had shown that “the defendant’s AR-15s could be easily modified with bump stocks to shoot automatically, which the shooter did with tragic results. So the [Parsonses] have sufficiently alleged causation.” Gordon ruled that the PLCAA did not bar the wrongful-death claim and referred the case to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said on the Brady Campaign website: “Today’s judgment is a victory, and an important step on the road to justice for the victims of the shooting at Chabad of Poway Synagogue, and all Americans who believe that the gun industry is not above the law. We look forward to proving our case in court, and working to prevent future tragedies.”
