Calif. Judge Rules Synagogue Shooting Victims Can Sue Smith & Wesson

[appalachiablue]

The Hill, By Mychael Schnell, July 12, 2021.

A San Diego judge ruled last week that the survivors and families of victims of a 2019 shooting at a California synagogue can sue Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the weapon used in the incident, in addition to the gun store that sold it.

Reuters reported that San Diego Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel dismissed a claim from Smith & Wesson that the lawsuit was not permitted based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a regulation that protects gunmakers and sellers from some responsibility when their products are used for crimes.

An accused gunman, later identified as John Earnest, who was 19 at the time of the incident, opened fire at the Chabad of Poway Synagogue in Poway, Calif., in April 2019, killing one worshiper and injuring three other people, including a rabbi and an 8-year-old, according to The Washington Post.

Earnest is facing state and federal prosecution on charges including murder, hate crimes and alleged civil rights violations, according to the Post. He did not have a hunting license at the time, which would have barred him from California's minimum age of 21 for owning long guns.

Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the judge’s ruling a “victory.”...

More,
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/562597-judge-rules-synagogue-shooting-victims-can-sue-smith-wesson
________

- Poway Synagogue Shooting; List of Other US Attacks, Antisemitism, WIKI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting

[Budi]

1. Thank you

"Earnest is facing state and federal prosecution on charges including murder, hate crimes and alleged civil rights violations"

[appalachiablue]

2. Great to see this, so many tragedies..

[Budi]

4. We need more like this judge. A LOT more!

[LifeLongDemocratic]

3. Appeal

They will appeal and it will move up the ladder to the Supreme Court. Gee, I wonder what the fascists on the supreme court will rule?

[appalachiablue]

5. Expand the high court, a must do.

[LifeLongDemocratic]

6. Senate in 2022

We need to truly take back the Senate in 2022 so we can ignore the blue dog democrats.

[appalachiablue]

7. Absolutely, do or die time for democracy.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

8. It won't even make it to the Supreme Court,

it'll be dismissed at the first Federal Court under the PLCAA, if not sooner.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/397

[FBaggins]

9. It may not make it to SCOTUS, but not due to PLCAA

There's an explicit exception in PLCAA for manufacturers who knowingly market a firearm in violation of state law (in this case, marketing targeting someone too young to purchase the firearm in question) if that marketing violation is a proximate cause for the harm.

It's important to recognize what the ruling here is and is not. The judge didn't rule that the manufacturer is liable in this case. He merely rejected the motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that PLCAA blocked such suits.

There's no telling whether plaintiffs can win the actual case, but their claim checks all the boxes that PLCAA requires in order to avoid a claim of immunity under that law from lawsuits in general.

I'm not sure that they'll even appeal the decision until after there's some reason to believe that they'll lose the case - since they would have to go through the 9th circuit first.