On Monday, a judge summarily dismissed a lawsuit filed by the anti-gun group Brady through its legal department, Brady Legal. The group claims that S&W and many other companies named as defendants in the Poway, Calif., synagogue shooting in April 2019 are somehow culpable, and that the U.S. firearms industry, particularly Smith & Attempted to cause damage to Wesson.
The perpetrator, John Earnest, used an S&W semi-automatic rifle to kill one worshiper and wound three others before being arrested by police.
Ernest is currently spending the rest of his life in prison without parole. But that didn't stop Brady from trying to break through the walls that protect the U.S. firearms industry from frivolous (but expensive!) lawsuits. In June 2020, the group, with the help of many survivors of the mass shooting, filed a complaint alleging that S&W, along with many of its supporters, designed, manufactured, and sold rifles in a way that made them complicit in crime. submitted.
inflammatory language
Brady's complaint used inflammatory language in hopes that it might be persuasive to California Superior Court Judge Wendy Behan.
The gunman used a Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 style rifle (the “Rifle”) to carry out the April 27, 2019 mass shooting, a military-style attack on worshipers at the Chabad of Poway synagogue. Engaged in a raid (“Incident”). ). The plaintiffs were among worshipers at a Chabad synagogue in Poway who were victims of the attack.
The incident was foreseeable.
Through the defendants' negligent and unlawful actions, the shooter turned a dark fantasy into a deadly reality by designing, marketing, distributing, and ultimately putting a highly lethal weapon, a rifle, into the hands of the shooter. I was able to change it.
According to the complaint,
(S&W) negligently and intentionally designed and manufactured military-style assault rifles that were easily effective in mass attacks on people, and in a way that attracted impulsive young people with military complexes (?). It sold military-style assault rifles. In particular, they are likely to be drawn to the unique capabilities of AR-15-style weapons, and are likely to be unfairly distributed and sold to the general public without reasonable safeguards to keep them out of harm's hands. I was there.
Judge Behan disagreed with that argument, stating, “The court finds that the asserted claims are exempt under the protections of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).”
And after reviewing the PLCAA for Brady Legal's benefit and reminding them that Congress created broad immunity clauses to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits like this one, she argued that their claims was dismantled.
Incontrovertible evidence shows that this rifle had no characteristics that would classify it as an assault weapon, and there is no legal basis to claim that it is an assault weapon simply because it can be modified after sale. .
The evidence that Smith & Wesson manufactured the rifle as a semi-automatic weapon and that shooters used the rifle as a semi-automatic weapon is indisputable.
She dismissed the idea that there was a “causal” connection between Smith & Wesson and the gunman's attack.
There are serious causal issues. … Proximate cause requires a direct and unbroken connection between the violation and the injury. … (T) The evidence shows that the shooter did not modify the grip of his rifle to enable rapid fire, which is unreasonable. concluded that this was a factor in the synagogue attack.
Moreover, it is unfair for S&W to be liable for injuries caused by grip modifications that played no role in the damages suffered by plaintiff.
Advertising doesn't matter
And she shot down Brady's claims that S&W's ads had anything to do with the attack.
Plaintiffs allege that certain advertisements, such as “The Chosen One,” falsely imply widespread use by law enforcement agencies and suggest that S&W's marketing promotes illegal use of its products. are.
The culprit definitely “knew about Smith & Wesson.” …Eventually, he purchased an S&W firearm. But the plaintiffs take a leap of logic by claiming that the shooter's mere knowledge of the S&W brand shows he had a motive to commit a crime…
(T) There is no evidence directly linking these ads to the actions of active shooters.
Mr. Behan dismissed the complaint after reading five short pages. “Based on the foregoing, the court finds in favor of (the defendants) and grants summary judgment to (the defendants).”
This judgment is relevant and timely. Next Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to hear a Mexican lawsuit against a U.S. firearms manufacturer that uses similarly lame arguments.
Related articles:
House presents new arguments in Mexican firearms case
