From: FRANCIS@asic.mtv.nec.com
Date: Sun, 16 APR 95 14:21:31
To: firearms-alert@shell.portal.com
Subject: CA Media - Mfg Liability Article and some notations


The following article appeared in the San Jose Mercury - 4/13/95.  
Observations and points to remember are noted at the bottom when preparing 
to debate or respond to this topic in letters to the editor.

MASSACRES SET STAGE FOR RULING ON GUN SUITS
By Bob Egelko
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Massacres by suicidal gunmen with high-powered assault 
rifles in a schoolyard and a law office sowed the seeds for what may prove 
to be a historic legal victory for the gun control movement. (1)
  When Superior Court Judge James Warren ruled Monday that the manufacturer 
of a semi-automatic pistols could be sued for the carnage at a San Francisco 
law firm in 1994, he cited one factor missing from unsuccessful suits in the 
past: The state has outlawed just such weapons. (2)
  "The commercial marketing or offering for sale of the TEC-DC9 to the 
general public in California is not only in appropriate, it is illegal,"  
(3) Warren wrote.  ". . . The Legislature . . . determined that the value of 
the TEC-DC9 to the community was substantially outweighed by its dangerous 
attributes." (4)
  Because the gun is illegal, Warren said, it may also be an "ultra-
hazardous" product.  That means the maker is automatically responsible for 
any harm it causes. (5) To make their case, he said, plaintiffs will also 
have to prove the gun was designed for mass killing and was marketed in a 
way that would appeal to criminals.
  Unless overturned on appeal, the ruling means the suit by eight survivors 
and family members of victims in the San Francisco shootings will likely be 
the first such case ever to go to trial.
  "This means they cannot sell those weapons and market them to the criminal 
element, take the money they make and sleep well that night," said Michelle 
Scully, whose husband, John, was killed as he tried to shield her from the 
gunfire. (6)
  Such rulings are an important step toward curbing the manufacture and sale 
of assault weapons, said Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Center to 
Prevent Handgun Violence and a plaintiff's lawyer in the case.
  The ruling also means a company that made and sold a gun legally in 
another state can be forced to pay damages for actions by a criminal in 
California, said Ernest Getto, lawyer for Navegar Inc., maker of two guns 
used by Gian Luigi Ferri in the San Francisco blood bath.
  California's ban on so-called assault weapons stems from a January 1989 
shooting spree in a Stockton elementary schoolyard by Patrick Purdy, who 
opened fire with an AK-47 semiautomatic rifle, killing five children and 
wounding 30 before killing himself. (7)

----------------------

(1) Playing with semantics is a common practice with journalists.  Since the 
7.62x39 round can hardly be called "high powered" and the 9mm pistol round 
even less so, the author, Mr. Egelko apparently continues the media's 
tradition of firearms ignorance.

(2) In 1989, California actually banned numerous models BY NAME, for sale 
after enactment of the law, while those legally owned prior to enactment  
would have to be registered and kept by the owner.  The TEC-DC9 was NEVER on 
the California ban list.  This statement is patently false.

(3) Warren, a judge who should already know the law, is stretching the 
boundaries of the imagination, by claiming that the offering for sale of a 
firearms NOT banned by California law, is somehow illegal.  He also is 
apparently ignoring the fact that Gian Luigi Ferri purchased his pistols in 
Nevada and brought them into California.

(4) The California State Legislature has NEVER made any ruling specific to 
the TEC-DC9.  Since the California law bans firearms BY NAME and not by 
function, any criticism or ruling based on the original TEC-9 pistol cannot 
be used to render a legal decision on the DC-9, unless a law is passed that 
bans all semi-automatic pistol in general (which has not happened yet).

(5) Thus if any legislature capriciously declares anything illegal, 
regardless of what it is, then that item or activity immediately 
transmutates into something "ultra-hazardous".  Example: Since spraypaints 
with specific CFCs are banned in California, the reasoning Judge Warren uses 
indicates that the manufacturer of these types of spraypaints in Michigan is 
criminally liable for the misuse of this spraypaint by grafitti vandals in 
California.  (It is noteworthy that (currently) the manufacturers of the 
hazardous product - HydroFluoric Acid (used in Silicon Valley industries) 
are in no way liable for the mis-use of their product which would result in 
death, in California.)

(6) It is a rare occurence that a company will obviously market an item to a 
section of the population who cannot legally purchase that item.  The 
marketing concept that these people are criticizing is Intratec's anti-
corrosion coating, which resists fingerprints and the other detrimental 
effects of human skin oil on metallic parts.  Their claim is that only 
criminals will want a firearm that resists corrosion.  This reasoning also 
implies that all gun owners have ulterior motives when they wipe finger and 
skin oil off of firearms with silicon treated cloth.

(7) Nearly every printed news article on the "assault weapon debate" feels 
the need to mention the Stockton Schoolyard incident again, and again.  
Though few gun owners would call Purdy's attack "a spree" the television, 
radio and print media have enthusiastically embraced the catch words 
"rampage", "blood bath", "shooting spree" when describing any gun related 
incident, regardless of the number of victims. (e.g. Sat 04/14/95 : KCBS 
radio described the exchange of gunfire between a Mendocino County Sheriff's 
Deputy and an armed criminal resulting in each of them killing the other, as 
a shooting rampage and a shooting spree.)