In 60 to 90 days, the family of a 101 California St. massacre victim will know whether the state Supreme Court will intervene in its suit against the manufacturer of the gun used in the 1993 San Francisco rampage.
A Sept. 29 ruling by the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco cleared the way for family members and survivors of the shooting, in which eight lost their lives and six suffered injuries, to sue the Florida-based manufacturer of the TEC-DC9, the assault weapon used in the attack.
The attorney for Carol Kingsley, the wife of slain American Jewish Congress regional President Jack Berman, and their son, Zachary Berman, cheered the ruling.
The TEC-DC9 “has no socially redeeming values,” said lawyer Fred Blum, who is a former regional president of the AJ Congress.
But Ernest Jetto, an attorney for Navegar, which makes the controversial firearm, filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court. At the center of the case is the question: “Where can the line be drawn between negligent and responsible marketing?”
Jews have a stake in the outcome, Blum said.
“Certainly we, as a minority, should be concerned” about the manufacture and heinous marketing of such firearms, he added.
Blum and the AJCongress are representing Kingsley and her son.
On Sept. 29, the three-judge panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that Navegar may be held responsible for marketing a gun that could be used to commit crimes.
The assault weapon was packaged with a manufacturer insert that touted its unique ability to resist fingerprinting — a clear sign that the gunmaker, Navegar, knew it was marketing the weapon to criminals, Blum said.
“The TEC-DC9 should never have been sold to the general public,” he said. “It has only one purpose: to kill people.”
Justice J. Anthony Kline agreed. The manufacturer “had substantial reason to foresee that many of those to whom it made the TEC-DC9 available would criminally misuse it to kill and injure others,” Kline wrote in the majority opinion.
In fact, the company went a step further, Kline wrote, deliberately “enticing” those who were “likely to so misuse the weapon.”
Blum, Kingsley and Zachary Berman were pleased by the decision, which set a precedent. Never before has an appeals court made such a ruling, opening the gates to numerous lawsuits.
The decision is expected to have sweeping consequences beyond the victims of 101 California St. and their family members.
“If you doubt whether [gun control] is a Jewish issue, go to the Jewish community center in North Valley,” where a gunman opened fire on children and staff this summer. “They now have to spend millions of dollars on security when that money could have been used on programs for children.”
Blum added: “The bottom line is that we live in this society, and this effects the way we live our lives.”
Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence in Washington, D.C., applauded the ruling.
And Tracy Salkowitz, executive director of AJCongress’ Northern Pacific region, said Blum is right on target.
“We are commanded by our religion and our tradition to care for issues that affect all of us,” she said. “It was [Rabbi] Hillel who said, ‘If I am only for myself, what am I?’ But it’s more than that.” By taking an active stance on ethical issues, Jews increase their visibility. “And when we are at the table to discuss these things as Jews, we increase understanding of Judaism.”
According to AJCongress statistics, gun violence claims 35,000 lives a year in this country — including 14 victims a day who are under the age of 19, dying in suicides, accidents and homicides perpetuated by other youths. Americans own roughly 200 million guns.
According to Salkowitz, legislators, too, are “finally getting the message” that “people have had it” with the unchecked power of gun manufacturers.
Twenty days before the appellate ruling, President Clinton announced $15 million in federal money to help mostly inner-city neighborhoods rid themselves of guns: $500,000 for gun buy-back programs and funds to hire 1,600 additional officers in police departments across the nation.
According to the White House, the “instant check” system, part of the Brady bill, has prevented some 700,000 illegal gun sales.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gray Davis has signed into law several bills that will take effect Jan. 1. The laws require all guns to be sold with trigger locks, prohibit the production of handguns that are considered unsafe and tighten controls for gun shows.
Other plaintiffs in the negligent-marketing suit include the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, which has also sued the gun manufacturer Beretta in the accidental death of an Oakland youth.
The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 1.2 million elementary school-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes.
San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne said earlier this year that her office may file a product-liability lawsuit, holding gun manufacturers responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on shooting-related costs, including emergency-room care and police response.
New Orleans and Chicago have filed similar lawsuits. And officials in Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami say they plan to do so.
According to the AJCongress, the only store in San Francisco that sold handguns, the Gun Exchange, recently closed its doors.