A California judge decided victims of the 2019 synagogue shooting near San Diego that killed one worshiper and wounded three can sue the manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle and the gun shop that sold it to the teenage gunman, according to a newspaper report.
Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel said Wednesday that victims and families in the Poway, California, synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest gunmaker, knew its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of state law.
A 2005 federal law shields gunmakers from damages in most cases for crimes committed with their weapons. But it allows lawsuits if the manufacturer was negligent or knowingly violated a state or federal law, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday.
Medel said the plaintiffs may also be able to sue on their claims that Smith & Wesson negligently marketed the rifle to youths on social media and video game-style ads, the newspaper said.
The judge also said the shop, San Diego Guns, could be sued for selling the weapon to John Earnest, who was 19 and lacked a hunting license that would have exempted him from California’s 21-year minimum age for owning long guns.
Prosecutors say Earnest, a nursing student, opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle during the last day of Passover services in April 2019. The attack killed 60-year-old Lori Gilbert-Kaye and wounded three others, including an 8-year-old girl and the rabbi, who lost a finger.
Earnest then allegedly called 911 to say he had shot up a synagogue because Jews were trying to “destroy all white people,” authorities said.
Earnest faces state murder charges carrying a potential death sentence and federal hate-crime charges.
Wednesday’s ruling is a victory for “all Americans who believe that the gun industry is not above the law,” said Jon Lowy, chief counsel for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sued on behalf of the victims.
Lawyers for Smith & Wesson didn’t immediately respond to the Chronicle’s request for comment.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
When anybody got around to calling 9-1-1, did he/she demand that officers be sent without their weapons? As an amateur gunsmith, no AR-15 can easily be converted to fully automatic operation. The murderer used his weapon in an unconverted state. This suit will cost S&W money to defend, but it’s DOA even in a California court of law.
They can sue gunmaker!!
From Jail where the “rabbi” is!!??
This was one of the few mass shootings in which Californias assault weapons laws worked: The shooter was limited to 10round magazines, and could not figure out how to change to the next magazine because of the state ban on single step mag release buttons.
Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel is a wicked person, a rasha, who has knowingly perverted the law and violated his oath of office. He has violated the 7 laws of Bnei Noach and deserves the worst punishment.
He “said Wednesday that victims and families in the Poway, California, synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest gunmaker, knew its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of state law.”
Even if this were true, and they knew it, the gunman DIDN’T DO THAT. This hypothetical possibility did not harm the victims in any way. So the victims have no right to sue for it.
Any victim who takes advantage of this wicked ruling will be a rasha and a thief, and every penny they get out of a settlement will be stolen. If they give any of it to tzedaka the recipient will have an obligation to return it to its rightful owner.
rofehardamah, what are you talking about? Boruch Hashem Rabbi Goldstein is not in prison, and with Hashem’s help he will not go to prison. And if he resists the temptation to launch such a false lawsuit then we can hope that will be a tikun for his past mistakes, and that zechus should keep him out of prison.
Another insane ruling by an insane liberal judge! The end result will be that the gun manufacturer will not be held liable. Anyone who thinks that they will be held viable is either crazy, a liberal, or both.
As far as the place where he bought the gun, if they followed the laws, they are exempt as well. That will come out eventually. This is all about a judge deciding that “somebody needs to pay for this,” when in reality the person that needs to pay for it is the one who pulled the trigger.
Since the US has collected Tax on the manufacturer and the State of California has also collected sales Taxes then one might argue they were partners on this crime. I think every public employee since they get paid from those funds need to be sued as well starting by the judge that gave the green light for the lawsuit