The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[EgonSpengler]

Here's a bit of analysis on the California bill from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

The Jurist, 6 January 2022 - "California legislature introduces legislation authorizing private citizen suits against gun industry"

It is highly unlikely that the final version of AB1594 would be this small or stop short with classifying violations of the gun industry under the umbrella of public nuisance. At the very least, the bill is likely to incorporate the governor’s vision to provide “injunctive relief, and statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“the Act”), passed in 2005, generally protects members of the gun industry from being sued for damages a person experiences as a result of the misuse of firearms. However, the law does not protect against lawsuits brought as a result of a violation of state law.

As such, any member of the gun industry who breaks California laws will not be shielded by the Act and can be sued under AB1594 if their illegal act involving a firearm caused damages to an individual.

I haven't read the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but I don't think I need to. Again, it seems like AB1594 opens enforcement of existing laws to civil suits. I would imagine that, in practice, these lawsuits will mostly be filed in the aftermath of a tragedy, which is shutting the door after the horse has gone, but if a lawsuit against one business prompts others to start minding their Ps and Qs, then maybe some good would come of it. To use the food analogy, if a restaurant gets sued after a customer gets salmonella because they mishandled their food, maybe that restaurant should go out of business. And if nearby restaurants have to raise their prices a little because they suddenly start abiding by the standards they were supposed to be adhering to all along, then so be it. The restaurants who were running their kitchens properly the whole time will be among the folks cheering the lawsuit, I reckon (and if the entire industry is so rife with unscrupulous behavior that the honest businesses have all been driven out, maybe it's time to burn it all down and start over).

 

[Farm Boy]

What is unscrupulous behavior in weapons manufacturing again?

 

[EgonSpengler]

What is unscrupulous behavior in weapons manufacturing again?

KCAL, 14 October 2021 - "California Joins Lawsuit Against ‘Ghost Gun’ Kit Makers"

“When firearms are built at home by individuals who have not passed a background check and have not had their guns properly serialized, it leaves law enforcement in the dark, and the public less safe,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.“

Such firearms have been used in a number of high-profile shootings in Southern California, including the ambush of two Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies last September and in the 2019 Saugus High School shooting that killed two students.

Ghost guns kits commonly contained unfinished frames and receivers and can be assembled into a fully functional weapon in as little as 15 minutes, according to the Attorney General’s Office. They are not serialized and allows unlicensed manufacturers and people barred from owning guns to bypass California requirements like registration and background checks.

The lawsuit alleges Blackhawk, MDX and GS Performance mislead[sic] buyers by not disclosing the legal obligations they face by making such a purchase. Blackhawk and Glockstore are also in violation of the California Manufacturer Firearms Law by failing to comply with California’s requirement that certain manufacturers engrave all frame and receiver blanks with a unique serial number, according to the lawsuit.

So this is the state joining the lawsuit. I guess AB1594 will allow private citizens to file lawsuits against a company like Blackhawk in the future.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How "high profile" a shooting is should not matter with regard to policy. It does, which is stupid and destructive. But it shouldn't.

What % of crimes involving firearms are committed using ghost guns?

 

[Farm Boy]

KCAL, 14 October 2021 - "California Joins Lawsuit Against ‘Ghost Gun’ Kit Makers"




So this is the state joining the lawsuit. I guess AB1594 will allow private citizens to file lawsuits against a company like Blackhawk in the future.

Interesting. So yet one more example of CA trying to screw over non CA industry by changing standards. I've watched them do this to passenger car manufacturers, etc. I guess I'm going guess this is much the same. It's a moneygrab attempt dressed up in social causes.

Well, nice when people are predictable at any rate. Go Democrats!

 

[EgonSpengler]

How "high profile" a shooting is should not matter with regard to policy. It does, which is stupid and destructive. But it shouldn't.

I agree. If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate all "mass shootings" in the US, it would be but a drop in the bucket of overall gun violence.

What % of crimes involving firearms are committed using ghost guns?

According to a NY Times article from last Fall,

"Forty-one percent, so almost half our cases we're coming across are these 'ghost guns'," said Carlos A. Canino, the Special Agent in charge of the ATF Los Angeles Field Division.

It's not clear to me what "cases" means, though. Is he saying 41% of guns used in crimes, or 41% of guns seized? I followed the link in the Times article to the ABC News story, but that wasn't any clearer. I guess it doesn't matter, for purposes here*, it's a lot either way.


* I started to write, "for the purpose of shooting the breeze here", but then thought better of it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Likely all of it.

 

[bernie14]

.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Skimming over the New York law on which the California bill is based (.pdf of the full text).

32 § 898-b. Prohibited activities. 1. No gun industry member, by conduct
33 either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances
34 shall knowingly or recklessly create, maintain or contribute to a condi-
35 tion in New York state that endangers the safety or health of the public
36 through the sale, manufacturing, importing or marketing of a qualified
37 product.

38 2. All gun industry members who manufacture, market, import or offer
39 for wholesale or retail sale any qualified product in New York state
40 shall establish and utilize reasonable controls and procedures to
41 prevent its qualified products from being possessed, used, marketed or
42 sold unlawfully in New York state.

53 § 898-e. Private right of action. Any person, firm, corporation or
54 association that has been damaged as a result of a gun industry member's
55 acts or omissions in violation of this article shall be entitled to
1 bring an action for recovery of damages or to enforce this article in
2 the supreme court or federal district court.

These sections seem to be the meat of it. I don't see anything objectionable there, but of course the Devil is often in the details.

Re: private right of action, I find it easy to imagine a law-abiding gun seller suing a shady competitor, or a gun-ownership advocacy group suing a noncompliant manufacturer or distributor in order to prevent further legal restrictions on lawful ownership.

10 1. "Deceptive acts or practices" shall have the same meaning as
11 defined in article twenty-two-A of this chapter.

I noticed it cites Article 22-A a few times, which is New York's consumer protection law against things like deceptive practices, false advertising.

349. Deceptive acts and practices unlawful. (a) Deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the
furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.

There are some specific things cited in sections of that article - counterfeit airbags; use of the title "doctor"; fraud against the elderly - but for the most part it's broadly applicable, and I can't think of a reason the gun industry should get some kind of exemption.

 

[Birdjaguar]

San Jose first to enact strict gun control laws

Calf. city requires fee, gun owner insurance

BY MAGGIE ANGST
THE MERCURY NEWS

SAN JOSE, Calif. — San Jose firearm owners will soon be subject to new gun control laws that no U.S. citizen has faced before.

In two separate votes, the San Jose City Council on Tuesday night passed a first-of-its-kind ordinance requiring residents who own a gun to carry liability insurance and pay an annual fee aimed at reducing gun violence — a divisive move that is sure to set off a series of legal challenges. Councilwoman Dev Davis dissented on both items, saying that she believed the measures would be ineffective and might even be unconstitutional. Councilmembers Matt Mahan and Pam Foley voted against the fees, voicing concerns about the management structure.

Such proponents as Mayor Sam Liccardo acknowledged that the two-pronged ordinance will not affect residents who unlawfully own guns. However, they argue that it will incentivize safer gun ownership, reduce the public cost of gun violence, and provide resources and services for residents who are most affected by the use of guns — those who own a firearm, or live in a home or are in a relationship with someone who does. “The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we’re not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook,” Liccardo said.

The council’s decision came more than two years after Liccardo first unveiled his proposal for the ordinance, and after hearing from nearly 100 speakers on both sides of the debate during Tuesday night’s meeting. While supporters saw the ordinance as an “innovative, nonburdensome way to reduce gun violence,” opponents called it “financial and bureaucratic harassment” and a policy that “taxes law-abiding citizens,” while “distracting the city from going after criminals.”

Liccardo initially pushed for these gun control measures in the wake of the mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in 2019 where four people, including two San Jose children, were gunned down by a man who cut through a security gate. He then reignited the effort last summer following the Bay Area’s deadliest mass shooting at a VTA rail yard. “When we think about the horrible shooting at the VTA and so forth, I don’t pretend to know if we could have stopped it or not,” Liccardo said. “But if, in fact, we could have delivered some mental health services, there may have been a chance.”

People attend a vigil for victims of a May shooting at San Jose City Hall. The city has passed new laws that apply to gun owners and aim to help prevent shootings. AMY OSBORNE/AGENCE FRANCE PRESS


The new ordinance, set to take effect in August, requires that all San Jose residents who own a gun obtain a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm.

Additionally, gun owners will be asked to pay an annual fee of between $25-$35 to a nonprofit organization that will be established to manage the funds and distribute them to groups who will offer various services to residents who own a firearm, or live with someone who does. Those services will include suicide prevention programs, gender-based violence services, mental health and addiction services, and firearm safety training, according to the city’s ordinance.

“There’s a lot more to gun violence than mass shootings and homicides, and that’s one of the things that gets lost,” said Councilman David Cohen.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I like the idea of liability insurance. I don't think it's something I'd heard of or thought of before.

(Citing the VTA rail yard massacre seems like a non-sequitur, though. I thought the guy used his own guns for that. iirc, he had a whole arsenal at his house. So making him buy insurance wouldn't have done much, even if his whole arsenal were all bought legally and he was abiding by laws and best practices until he flipped his lid. Unless I'm missing something.)

 

[Samson]

I like the idea of liability insurance. I don't think it's something I'd heard of or thought of before.

(Citing the VTA rail yard massacre seems like a non-sequitur, though. I thought the guy used his own guns for that. iirc, he had a whole arsenal at his house. So making him buy insurance wouldn't have done much, even if his whole arsenal were all bought legally and he was abiding by laws and best practices until he flipped his lid. Unless I'm missing something.)

Yeah, I was thinking what sort of liability insurance would cover the "going postal" deaths. There are a small proportion of the total gun deaths though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I like the idea of liability insurance. I don't think it's something I'd heard of or thought of before.

Its something i and others on these threads have been advocating/discussing for years. I am interested to see how the Constitutionality of this will play out in the Courts.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Its something i and others on these threads have been advocating/discussing for years.

Indeed. I see it mentioned 2 years ago (which was as far back as I went).

I am interested to see how the Constitutionality of this will play out in the Courts.

Me too. Right off the top of my head, I don't have any predictions to make on that score, although that's partly out of fatigue and disinterest. In general, I'm pretty tired of gun ownership even being a constitutional right at all, because proponents seem so unable or unwilling to defend it, even in casual conversation (that is, they lean on the 2nd Amendment as if it were self-justifying and self-explanatory) but a repeal amendment seems about as likely as me getting a date with Betty Gilpin.

 

[Samson]

gun ownership even being a constitutional right

It is not actually gun ownership that is protected, but the bearing of arms. It seems to me there is plenty of room within the constitution to clamp down on personal ownership while keeping the bearing of arms as part of a well regulated militia (that being necessary to the security of a free state).

 

[EgonSpengler]

It is not actually gun ownership that is protected, but the bearing of arms. It seems to me there is plenty of room within the constitution to clamp down on personal ownership while keeping the bearing of arms as part of a well regulated militia (that being necessary to the security of a free state).

It's 'keep and bear arms', not just bear arms. But that's neither here nor there, really. The stupid wording of the thing is just one of the headaches it causes. I would prefer to just strike the whole thing, but if reasonable conversation came around to an amendment re-wording it, I'd be willing to accept that as a compromise (well, depending on what the wording was, I guess). But again, Betty Gilpin.

 

[El_Machinae]

My respect for Common Law really wishes y'all would just amend it. These hacks are a little offensive, in a legal sense, even if they're necessary to prevent kids from shooting their parents or finding their hopeless parents in a brainless and spattered state.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Second Amendment is going nowhere... fast... faster than a speeding bullet. Its not going to be amended, repealed, or otherwise curtailed, ever... or at least not in our lifetimes. I've said many times that I think this is a quixotic issue for Democrats. I fully understand why so many people are so passionate about it, but its just an absolute albatross around Democrats neck, that does nothing but serve to galvanize opposition.

 

[El_Machinae]

The people who already have the guns definitely want to keep it around, and their mantras include using the guns in order to keep them legal. The realpolitik is brutal.

But the hacks are still ugly.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Second Amendment is going nowhere... fast... faster than a speeding bullet. Its not going to be amended, repealed, or otherwise curtailed, ever... or at least not in our lifetimes. I've said many times that I think this is a quixotic issue for Democrats. I fully understand why so many people are so passionate about it, but its just an absolute albatross around Democrats neck, that does nothing but serve to galvanize opposition.

Are there Democrats who support repeal or revision? I might be interested in finding out who they are. I agree that, from a political perspective, it's a non-starter. Still, knowing who favors it, even if it's just philosophically, might help me sort out who to support.