Californians can soon sue gun manufacturers if their products cause harm or threaten communal safety, thanks to a bill signed this week by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Assembly Bill 1594, which will take effect in July 2023, entitles gun violence survivors, the state attorney general and state and local governments to pursue civil litigation against the gun industry if the sale, distribution or marketing of their firearms violates state law.
Newsom stated that almost every industry is held legally liable if their products hurt or kill others, and guns should be no exception. His hope is to push gun manufacturers to carry out better practices with an “industry standard of conduct.”
“To the victims of gun violence and their families: California stands with you. The gun industry can no longer hide from the devastating harm their products cause,” Newsom said in a statement. “Our kids, families and communities deserve streets free of gun violence and gun makers must be held accountable for their role in this crisis.”
The bill states that companies can be sued if they manufacture, sell and distribute firearms that are “abnormally dangerous” and likely to cause a risk to public safety — for example, guns that are designed for “assaultive purposes” rather than self-defense or hunting, have a foreseeable conversion into the illegal firearm marketplace or are targeted to minors or others who are legally prohibited from buying a weapon.
Due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act enacted in 2005, gun manufacturers have had federal immunity from civil lawsuits when their guns are used for crime. There is an exception, which is when companies violate state regulations. The bill, authored by Assemblymembers Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, Mike Gipson, D-Carson, and Chris Ward, D-San Diego, draws from this exception.
Ting said California law already lists out the gun industry’s responsibilities, like background checks, selling safety devices and preventing straw purchases — so if someone is killed, violations of these standards could be used as a foundation of a lawsuit.
“For far too long, the firearms industry has enjoyed federal immunity from civil lawsuits, providing them no incentive for them to follow our laws. Hitting their bottom line may finally compel them to step up to reduce gun violence by preventing illegal sales and theft,” Ting said in a statement.
Ting and the other bill authors used cases seen around the country to justify the proposal’s legal validity; for example, when families from the Sandy Hook school shooting successfully sued Remington earlier this year after arguing their marketing of their AR-15-style rifle violated Connecticut state law.
In response to recent mass shootings in Highland Park, Illinois; Buffalo, New York; and Uvalde, Texas; California leaders have promised to strengthen the state’s gun laws, which are already considered the strongest in the nation. AB 1594 was one of the numerous gun bills Newsom requested to expedite earlier this year.
Last month, Newsom also allocated $156 million to fund gun violence prevention programs in 79 cities and non-profit organizations, which stems from a larger violence prevention grant program that began in 2017.
Also this week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta backed a new federal rule to crack down on ghost guns. Bonta said the gun industry continues to use “bullying, exploitation and fear” to make profit from the mass shootings their products are used in.
“In California, we refuse to settle with thoughts and prayers as innocent lives are lost — we demand and will deliver urgent action, now,” Bonta said in a statement.
Newsom 2024!
Are you trolling??? Gotta be….
And Lindsey Cobia for VP! It’s like they’re a well lubricated machine joined at the hip! Nothing slips between these two!
Trauma
I pray you are joking. The thought of Newsom being our president … imagine the entire United States looking like a third world country, much like San Francisco today. San Francisco is Newscums current legacy. Imagine his tyranny over Californians during Covid … at a national level, none of us would be safe. As a taxpayer legally in the United States, we would have zero rights …. They would all reside with the illegals.
Matthew McConaughey laughing about Uvalde girl. Nothing suspicious at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87rWQxguTIE&t=23s
So now I can sue Toyota if I get hit by one of their cars walking across the street. Or I can sue Louisville slugger if someone hits me with a bat. Absolutely asinine. Maybe I will sue Krispy Kreme if I get fat from eating the products.
California is a clown show. Newsom is a absolute joke.
And I can sue his winery after I drink some of his wine and die?
You can if Toyota or Louisville Slugger failed to comply with their responsibilities. The article notes that for guns this includes: “background checks, selling safety devices and preventing straw purchases.”
Uhhh Chuq? Not sure how many firearms you’ve purchased but this law is directed at manufacturers. Background checks and preventing straw purchases as well as selling safety devices is the purview of dealers, not manufacturers unless they are selling direct. There might be a spot for you in California government. By the way, for the edification of us all perhaps you can answer the question posed. Can I sue Toyota if a person driving a Toyota hits me in a crosswalk and the car was sold with no mechanical defects?
If a Chevy rear ends you, now you can sue Chevy and General Motors.
“Newsom also allocated $156 million to fund gun violence prevention”. Is he going to pay gang bangers not to shoot anyone? Democrats and their pandering will never get anything right.
I would also say that you should be able to sue the government for putting the road on the streets that the car obviously had to travel over.
I can’t wait for some enterprising lawyer to use this law against a car manufacturer next time someone’s killed in a car accident. This is going to backfire big time.
Abnormally dangerous
Assaultive purposes
God help us.
@Snakekeeper
+1
Newsom throws another “bone” to the trial lawyers Association.
Accomplishes a few things,
Free TV face time
Full employment act for law firms
Spanking gun manufacturers for not contributing more to democrat SWAMP CREATURES.
DEMs are adept at using legal system against those they want to harm.
Do some research into how many times The Courts have ruled AGAINST newsom’s actions. Possible this too will end up in The Supreme Court.
An even better idea: Sue ipad retailers for accident injuries. Very easy to verify as a record of dates and times are easily located. Be my guest victims. The opportunities are endless. Ambulance chasers, you know what to do.
Can’t wait for CA CCW holders to sue the irresponsible State for breach of personal information.
I don’t see in the words actual injury needs to occur but just if someone thinks it is more offensive than defensive, whatever that means.
“abnormally dangerous” and likely to cause a risk to public safety — for example, guns that are designed for “assaultive purposes” rather than self-defense or hunting”……. Who wrote this…. was it Larry, Darryl and Darryl?
Complete BS.
Nimwit Newsom at your service. Never looks at the big picture or final result and consequences. Spends too much time polishing his hair and shoes for his Hollywood image. .
In the us, y’all can sue anybody for anything. The question are: can you win? Can the defendant pay if the defendant loose?
Newsome just make it easier for the gun manufacturers to loose. And there will be massive tort.
This will last until the first lawsuit, which will be thrown out very early in the process.
Newsome permits.
Newsome is nothing but Pelosi’s nephew and a corrupt communist.
He’s is certainly no one to be revered in any way.
Being able to sue gun manufacturers is like being able to sue shovel manufacturers when the shovel misses some $hit.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is seriously mistaken.
“Designed for assaultive purposes…”?
Stupid politicians- manufacturers generally sell to dealers, not directly to the end user.
Of course, those praising the bill have no idea what they’re talking about.
The law allows dealers to be sued, as well.
Uh Chuqqqq,
Last time I checked – Nobody can purchase a firearm directly from Ruger, Glock or Smith&Wesson.
Maybe they can do Floating Gun Shows and Sales to match your Floating Abortion Clinics.
CHECKMATE!
…. so somebody gets seriously injured by an idiot that happens to be driving a Camry you can sue Toyota then? ….another Newsum logic…. and another French Laundry incident – goes to Montana on vacation but tells everybody else not to go there or do business there based on his values …. you voted against the recall and voted for him again? you deserve what you get….
Of course this means absolutely nothing. It is clearly just Newsome grandstanding and pandering like he always does.
Unfortunately that is all he needs to do in California but let’s all hope that his act will fall flat on a national level. Goodness knows we’d better hope that the country has enough sense to send him packing.
Too bad we can’t sue politicians in civil court for being “abnormally dangerous” such as “assaultive” rather than “defens”ive of our liberties.
+1
That Newsom is just a fun loving motivator of people…..
If you google “Nimrod” his picture come up.
And while Bonta is bad, Becerra is the guy to really watch out for. These guys are the trifecta of delusion.
Newsom apparently wants to disallow firearms. All the while his weapon is using the remaining Californian taxpayers money to further his political aspirations. His administration has spent on average over 300 billion dollars a year on anything but helping our state. California has been on fire for over three years, our infrastructure is crumbling, his management of our drought is pathetic. With decades of tents on the sidewalks and poo on the streets being his calling card, his qualifications are nullified…
“… families from the Sandy Hook school shooting successfully sued Remington earlier this year after arguing their marketing of their AR-15-style rifle violated Connecticut state law.”
One more example of misinformation. The case was settled by Remington’s insurers and Remington was already in bankruptcy. It’s called subrogation, and the case never made it in front of a jury.
newsome is a pos scum bag.
I don’t understand the point of passing legislation that will later be found unconstitutional, I understand it’s all political grandstanding, but the waste of time and money is asinine.