Assault Weapons

• Related Articles

Military-style assault weapons pose a uniquely severe threat to public safety. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, law enforcement officers and individual citizens faced increasing danger from violent criminals armed with rapid-fire, high-capacity assault weapons designed for the principal purpose of killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

The nation received chilling demonstrations of the danger of these weapons able to rapidly fire huge amounts of ammunition without the need to reload. For example, in January 1989, an attacker spray-fired a Stockton, California school yard with over one hundred rounds from an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle, killing five children and wounding twenty-nine more in minutes.

This was not an isolated incident. Data revealed the unique criminal appeal of assault weapons and their disproportionate use in criminal activity. For example, in May 1989, Cox Newspapers widely publicized its study of ATF tracing data determining that assault weapons were twenty times more likely to be traced to crime than other firearms.

The tracing data, studies, and news reports have made manufacturers of assault weapons fully aware of the strong link between their products and violent crime. Confronted with evidence of the guns' disproportionate use in crime, the marketing director of TEC-9 manufacturer Navegar, Inc., told a New York Times reporter "I'm kind of flattered. It just has that advertising tingle to it. Hey, it's talked about, it's read about, the media write about it. That generates more sales for me. It might sound cold and cruel, but I'm sales oriented."

Responding to this problem, governments passed assault weapon bans, laws restricting the possession, sale and transport of these weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines.

Recognizing that the manufacturers of these weapons should be responsible for the costs of their actions, the District of Columbia enacted the Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990. This statute provides that the manufacturer, importer, or dealer of an assault weapon can "be held strictly liable in tort, without regard to fault or proof of defect, for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death" resulting from a shooting in the District of Columbia. The statute applies to all semiautomatic firearms with a capacity of more than 12 rounds, as well as specific guns identified as assault weapons in the statute.

Manufacturers and sellers of assault weapons disseminate a product that poses extraordinarily severe and foreseeable dangers, and they should be liable for harm caused if they fail to exercise adequate care in the design, distribution, or marketing of these guns. The Legal Action Project represents injured victims and their families in groundbreaking liability suits against the manufacturers and sellers of assault weapons.

RELATED ARTICLES

D. Henigan, Victims' Litigation Targets Gun Violence. Trial, (Feb. 1995).

This article looks at the movement within the judiciary toward "fashioning a common law of accountability that recognizes that the inherent danger of firearms justifies a higher standard of conduct." This development has led to owner liability for improperly stored guns used in accidental shootings by minors, retailer liability for negligent or illegal gun sales, and manufacturer liability for the manufacture and sale of guns having no legitimate purpose that are used in crimes.

J. Bonderman, After the Ban: Shifting the Cost of Assault Weapon Violence to the Gun Industry, Civil Trail Bar Section Newsletter, Vol. IV, No. 2, NJ State Bar Association, (Feb. 1992).

Although the ban of certain assault weapons by the New Jersey Legislature is a positive step, the author argues that judicial action is required to shift the costs of violence caused by assault weapons from victims to assault weapon manufacturers and dealers. The author focuses on the "abnormally dangerous activity" doctrine as a means to ensure that the assault weapons industry bears the costs for the lethal consequences of its trade.

J. Bonderman, Seller Conduct Is Key To Assault-Gun Liability, Leaders' Product Liability Law & Strategy, 8 (April 1991).

Sellers of nondefective handguns have escaped liability for criminal misuse of their products. The author persuasively argues that sellers of assault weapons should be treated differently. Claims applying the ultrahazardous activity doctrine and a simple negligence analysis may lead to assault weapon dealer liability, based on improper marketing decisions that endanger the public.

J. Bonderman, In Search of Justice: Compensation for Victims of Assault Weapon Violence, BNA Product Safety And Liability Reporter, Vol. 20, No. 25 (June 26, 1992).

The "abnormally dangerous activity" doctrine and negligence serve as means to shift costs of injuries and deaths resulting from the use of semiautomatic assault weapons from victims and society at large to gun dealers. Cost shifting resulting from the imposition of tort liability will force gun dealers to either increase the cost of assault weapons or limit their sale to the military and police. Either choice will have positive ramifications for public safety.

J. Bonderman Civil Liability of Firearms Dealer for Illegal Sale of Crime Gun, CTLA Forum (June 1993)

Imposing liability on gun dealers for violating statutes barring sales of guns to minors and other prohibited persons, based on negligence causes of action, will change the overall behavior of those involved in the industry. The author looks at several cases indicative of the trend toward imposing dealer liability when the sale is illegal or the foreseeability of harm is evident.

• Also see related cases