Pinocchio puffed a cigar on Pleasure Island (1940). The Caterpillar blew hookah smoke in Alice’s face (1951). Fumes curled from Cruella de Vil’s cigarette holder (1961).

By 1965, nearly 43% of American adults smoked — but by 2021, that had plummeted to just 12.5%. It wasn’t just grotesque pictures of diseased lungs or the surgeon general’s warning that changed minds: Lawsuits against big tobacco companies — spearheaded by state attorneys general — forced them to pay out more than $200 billion in damages. They agreed to change the way they market tobacco products, financed a $1.5 billion anti-smoking campaign, opened previously secret industry documents and disbanded trade groups that officials said conspired to conceal damaging research from the public.

Could pending legislation in Sacramento have a similar impact on the gun industry? Yes, it could, said Connie Pechmann, professor of marketing at UC Irvine’s Paul Merage School of Business. (Cue the Disney-esque twinkle in lawmakers’ eyes.)

“Many of the tobacco cases succeeded because of the companies’ deceptive or misleading marketing techniques, targeting young people or implying the products were safe,” said Pechmann. “Those cases go on to this day, winning millions for people harmed by tobacco products. That technique has worked over and over again, and there’s a movement among litigation attorneys to adopt a similar approach with the gun industry.”

Orange County is home to 248 folks with federal firearms licenses (California has 2,675 total) – the required license to sell most guns. The California chapter of the National Rifle Association — the California Rifle & Pistol Association — is headquartered in Fullerton. Juggernaut Tactical, a gun manufacturer in Orange, was recently slapped with a cease-and-desist order by the state Attorney General, demanding that it stop selling and distributing assault weapons that it claims are compliant with California law (the AG disagrees).

Authorities gather near scene of a mass shooting that claimed several lives in Sacramento, Calif., Sunday, April 3, 2022. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

These organizations exist in the state with the nation’s strictest gun laws (as well as the seventh-lowest rate of gun violence deaths), and myriad bills are pending in Sacramento to regulate the industry even further. Nominated for “most likely to radically change the universe as we know it”: bills that would allow private citizens to sue gun manufacturers for the death and destruction their products cause, much as tobacco companies were sued decades ago.

The Juggernaut and Rifle & Pistol folks weren’t eager to chat about the perilous landscape that might lay ahead. But, after the shooting that killed six and injured a dozen people in Sacramento, Patricia Boe sure was.

“It just breaks my heart,” said Boe, of Santa Ana. “I’m just so sick and tired of — it feels like daily — waking up to news of the latest mass shooting. In America, every single day,  we have more than 100 people killed by gun violence, and double that many wounded. Every single day.”

Astonishingly, her numbers are correct. Boe has two children, ages 8 and 5. She got active with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America after the Parkland, Florida, high school shootings in 2018, saying she just couldn’t sit on her hands any longer and leave the work to others. “They just had a lockdown drill at school,” she said of her kids. “I try not to freak them out, but I asked, ‘Do you know why?’ And they said, ‘Yeah, in case a bad guy with a gun or a knife comes to school.’ It flips my stomach, how matter-of-fact they were.”

Enter, among others, Senate Bill 1327.

California Attorney General

Sue ’em

“Although most shooting deaths involve handguns, there has been a dramatic rise in the use of assault weapons in gun massacres with six or more deaths, owing to their abilityto inflict greater damage at a quicker rate,” says an analysis for the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Another rising scourge is the prevalence of ‘ghost guns.’ In 2020, California accounted for 65 percent of all ghost guns seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives….”

There has been an astounding increase in gun sales in California. In 2000, there were 193,355 handguns sold. By 2020, that more than tripled, to 686,435.

The FBI did 8.5 million background checks on would-be gun buyers nationwide in 2000. That more than quadrupled, to 38.9 million, by 2021.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, shown in January, supports legislation that could lead to more lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

Folks buy guns to protect themselves and their families, but a new study published April 5 in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that the exact opposite is true. Narrowing the field to homicides occurring at home, people who lived with a handgun owner were seven times more likely to be fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner than people not living with a handgun owner. Most of the victims were women.

“This bill seeks to curb the prevalence of these weapons by enlisting the help of Californians. … Any Californian is authorized to bring a civil action against anyone that manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, or causes to be distributed or transported or imported into the state, keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale, or gives or lends any assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle, firearm lacking a required serial number, or firearm precursor part. … The bill is modeled after a controversial Texas abortion law, and includes a number of the same problematic procedural mechanisms.”

Beginning on July 1, 2023, anyone who has suffered harm could sue a firearm industry member for unfair competition, deceptive acts or practices, false advertising and more. The law would allow courts to award monetary relief, attorney’s fees and costs.

More than 45,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries in the United States in 2020, the most on record by far, the Senate analysis says.

Supporters include Gov. Gavin Newsom, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Students Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Opposition: Gun Owners of California.

Second amendment, other issues

“SB 1327 would make legal gun manufacturers liable for the illegal act of another. Not only is it firmly unconstitutional – given that the 2nd Amendment is explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but it’s also a clear violation of federal law,” the group protested in written comments.

“In 2005, Congress passed The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act specifically for this reason – to protect the firearm industry from lawsuits that target the actual gun rather than the person whose finger was on the trigger. The act does not protect anyone who commits a crime, only those involved in the legal commerce of a legal product.

“Just as it would be improper to sue an automobile manufacturer – or more to the point, the owner of a winery – for a fatal drunk driving crime after imbibing there, it is equally inappropriate to sue a lawful gun maker for engaging in lawful commerce. The same logic would apply to the makers and sellers of eating utensils such as forks and spoons, because they lead to overeating and the possible deadly consequences of heart disease or diabetes.”

The California GOP also has harsh words for the bills, saying lawmakers “shamelessly trotted out their tired, worn-out talking points, blaming the gun and not the criminal.”

The Sacramento shooting appears to involve a man with an extensive criminal history who was released from prison early, over the objections of the Sacramento County District Attorney, the CAGOP said in a statement.

“There are times when holding criminals accountable means serving the full sentence that they have earned,” it said.

As of Friday, two people had been arrested in connection with the shooting, and police said there could have been five shooters involved.

The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis gives the Texas-style enforcement approach the stink eye, voicing deep concern about legitimizing it.

“Similar to the Texas law, this bill specifically prohibits any public enforcement and relies solely on the private right of action to hold those in violation liable. … The goal is to create an enforcement scheme that is similarly shielded from challenge. The central difference is that Texas’ law almost certainly infringes on Texans’ constitutional rights. Here, the bill’s private enforcement mechanism is being used to carry out gun control laws that arguably fall within constitutional parameters,” the analysis says.

“The clear premise of this bill is if Texas can use this clever scheme to subvert federal supremacy and infringe on constitutional rights its Legislature and Governor do not favor, then California should use it to carry out its own, constitutional policy goals. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It is certainly clear that this mechanism will advance the policy of the state to restrict the relevant weapons. … However, there is a risk that utilizing this model only legitimizes it further, which could have negative ramifications across the nation.”

More gun lawsuits await?

Another bill, AB 1594, would allow individuals as well as the California Attorney General to sue manufacturers and sellers of firearms for the harm caused by their products.

Other bills would restrict marketing of firearms to minors, further restrict the proliferation of ghost guns, ensure that victims of excessive police force can access victim compensation funds, require schools to notify parents about secure storage laws, and more. There’s a list of gun-related bills at https://momsdemandaction.org/after-sacramento-mass-shooting-legislation-to-curb-gun-violence-ready-to-move-through-legislature/.

UCI’s Pechmann points out that federal law shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits — a rather large obstacle to overcome. But federal law also forbids deceptive or misleading marketing practices — and that’s the loophole that states like California and New York are trying to exploit with new laws targeting marketing and advertising in the gun industry.

“The approach will work because the marketing is often egregious,” Pechmann said.

On Feb. 15, Remington Arms reached a $73 million settlement with victims’ families from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, when Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 children and six staff members.

The victims’ families argued that Remington violated state consumer laws with their advertising for the gun Lanza used — a .223-caliber Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle. “In a world of rapidly depleting testosterone, the Bushmaster Man Card declares and confirms that you are a man’s man,” its website said before the massacre.

“That case didn’t go to trial but settled using the same approach as the tobacco suits — attacking the marketing,” Pechmann said. “It’s a very clever idea. I do think that’s the only way forward with these cases.”

State attorneys general could pursue gun manufacturers based on the harm they cause children, or to recoup the costs of dealing with the fallout of gun violence.

To come full circle, note that you don’t see Disney characters smoking anymore. And note that guns have cropped up in Disney films as well: A hunter shoots Bambi’s mom. Clayton wields a double-barrel shotgun in “Tarzan.” Gaston shoots the still-cursed prince over and over in “Beauty and the Beast.”

Also, note that a holster dangles from Woody’s hip in “Toy Story” and that it’s always empty.

What do you think of the proposed legislation? Drop me a well-reasoned note and let us know. We’ll put together a compendium of readers’ thoughts.

Related Articles