Suit Okayed Against Gun Manufacturer, Store in Chabad of Poway Shooting

By Donald H. Harrison

Donald H. Harrison

SAN DIEGO – Unless overturned on appeal, a case brought against gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson and gun store San Diego Guns will be permitted to proceed on behalf of the victims of the April 27, 2019  shooting at Chabad of Poway, which occurred on the last day of Passover.

The July 7 ruling by San Diego Superior Court Judge Kenneth J. Medel came in a case filed by Brady Legal, a public interest law firm created in the aftermath of the attempted assassination in 1981 of President Ronald Reagan during which his press secretary James Brady was wounded. Brady later became a campaigner for stricter gun laws.

Plaintiffs in the Chabad suit filed in 2020 included its former Rabbi, Yisroel Goldstein, who since has been removed from his position on unrelated fraud charges; Israel Dahan in behalf of his minor daughter, Noya, who was among those wounded, and Almog Peretz, who also was wounded.  Killed in the attack for which John T. Earnest faces trial in both federal and state courts was Lori Gilbert Kaye, who according to contemporary reports interposed her body between the shooter and the rabbi.  The City of Poway subsequently named a street in her memory: Lori Lynn Lane.

Citing a 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which exempts gun manufacturers and stores from damages under most conditions arising from the use of their product(s) in the commission of a crime, Smith & Wesson and San Diego Guns both sought to have the complaint dismissed.

However, the law does include some exceptions, upon which Brady Legal and the plaintiffs relied in bringing their suit. Manufacturers and stores are not exempt from the law if they broke other laws in the process.  The complaint alleged that Smith & Wesson knowingly violated a law prohibiting sale of “machine guns” by creating an AR-15 that could be easily modified from a single shot format to multiple shot format.  Additionally the suit contended that Smith & Wesson had engaged in deceptive practices.

As for San Diego Guns, the suit contends that under California State law the AR-15 was negligently sold to accused shooter John T. Earnest because at the time of purchase Earnest was under the age of 21 and lacked a valid hunting license.

The Brady organization issued a news release describing Judge Medel’s ruling as a victory and “an important step on the road to justice for the victims of the shooting at Chabad of Poway Synagogue, and all Americans who believe that the gun industry is not above the law.  We look forward to proving our case in court, and working to prevent future tragedies.”

Others involved in the case were more reticent about commenting  Invitations for comment went unanswered by the attorneys for Smith & Wesson and San Diego Guns, and likewise a family member of a victim of the Poway shootings declined comment pending consultation with an attorney.

*
Donald H. Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World.  He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com

1 thought on “Suit Okayed Against Gun Manufacturer, Store in Chabad of Poway Shooting”

  1. 2nd Amendment of the Constitution

    This is an attempt to set precedent to hold gun manufacturers liable for the misuse of their products. Next will be Louiville Slugger for bats used in assaults.

Comments are closed.