By Jason C. Davis, Attorney at The Davis Law Firm (www.calgunlawyers.com)
As counsel for firearms dealers and distributors in the consolidated California firearms litigation (In re Firearm Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4095), I defended my clients in a calculated onslaught of litigation directed at the firearms industry that consisted of approximately 40 lawsuits filed nationwide under public nuisance and negligence theories, designed to bankrupt the firearms industry and render the Second Amendment meaningless. Beginning in 1998, these unprecedented lawsuits, spearheaded by anti-gun activists and municipalities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley, and Compton, targeted manufacturers for the criminal misuse of firearms. They nearly succeeded in dismantling lawful commerce, threatening Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The cultural impact was so strong that, in 2003, film Runaway Jury, adapted from John Grisham’s 1996 novel about tobacco litigation but reframed as a gun industry lawsuit, amplified anti-gun sentiment, with some speculating its release was timed to coincide with the California trial that never happened. Only the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005 saved the industry from collapse. This article chronicles the litigation’s rise, its California epicenter, the cultural impact of Runaway Jury, and the PLCAA’s pivotal role in preserving the Second Amendment.
The assault began on October 30, 1998, when New Orleans filed the first municipal lawsuit against firearms manufacturers in Louisiana state court, alleging public nuisance and negligence. The city claimed that manufacturers oversupplied dealers, foreseeably enabling illegal gun trafficking, and sought damages for gun violence-related costs. Drawing from tobacco litigation’s multibillion-dollar settlements, this suit introduced novel theories—public nuisance, negligence, and product liability—that threatened to hold lawful industries liable for third-party crimes. By year’s end, Chicago (November 1998) followed, suing 22 manufacturers for similar claims.
As an attorney representing dealers and distributors, I saw these lawsuits as a deliberate attempt to bypass legislative processes and financially cripple a constitutionally protected industry. The plaintiffs, backed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, aimed to exploit tort law to restrict firearm access and undermine the Second Amendment. By 1999, the litigation wave had grown to approximately 40 cases, including 30 municipal and county lawsuits, several state actions, and suits by groups like the NAACP, all relying on public nuisance and negligence theories to demand damages and industry reforms.
In May 1999, California became the focal point of this legal war. Twelve jurisdictions—San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Compton, Inglewood, West Hollywood, Oakland, Sacramento, East Palo Alto, Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Los Angeles County—filed lawsuits against manufacturers. Our clients’ faced claims that their lawful production and distribution practices constituted a public nuisance and violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).
These suits demanded civil penalties and injunctive relief, such as mandating unproven safety features like “smart guns.” The plaintiffs, supported by the Brady Center and firms like Milberg Weiss, aimed to overwhelm manufacturers with coordinated litigation. Their strategy was clear: even if the lawsuits failed, legal costs would bankrupt the industry, disrupting the supply chain critical to Second Amendment rights.
On February 10, 2000, the San Diego Superior Court consolidated the California lawsuits under In re Firearm Cases (JCCP No. 4095) for pretrial and trial proceedings. As defense counsel, I navigated extensive discovery demands arguing that our clients’ compliance with federal and California laws negated liability. The plaintiffs, led by city attorneys like Dennis Herrera (San Francisco) and Rockard J. Delgadillo (Los Angeles), pressed a narrative that lawful manufacturing was reckless, threatening the Second Amendment’s practical viability.
Nationally, the litigation burden grew. In March 2000, Smith & Wesson settled with the Clinton administration and several cities, agreeing to safety features and distribution limits. The settlement triggered a consumer boycott, nearly bankrupting the company, and highlighted the lawsuits’ coercive power. Legal costs, often exceeding $1 million per case, pushed the industry’s total defense expenses into the hundreds of millions, threatening manufacturers with insolvency.
The anti-gun narrative gained cultural traction with John Grisham’s The Runaway Jury. Published in 1996 about tobacco litigation, it was adapted into a film released on October 17, 2003, directed by Gary Fleder. The film shifted to a lawsuit against a fictional gun manufacturer, Vicksburg Firearms, after a New Orleans shooting, depicting a plaintiff’s attorney suing for “gross negligence” and a manipulated jury. Starring John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, and Rachel Weisz, it culturally reinforced the plaintiffs’ public nuisance and negligence claims. Some speculated the release was delayed to align with the California trial, set for October 10, 2003, but this is unconfirmed. Nonetheless, its anti-gun messaging amplified the litigation’s cultural impact.
From 2001 to 2002, courts began dismantling the litigation’s flawed theories. The Louisiana Supreme Court (2001) dismissed New Orleans’ suit, citing state prohibitions and weak nuisance claims. The Illinois Supreme Court (2002) dismissed Chicago’s case, ruling that criminal misuse broke causation. New York’s Hamilton v. Beretta (2001) and the NAACP’s suit (dismissed 2003) met similar fates. These rulings exposed legal weaknesses but did little to ease the industry’s financial strain, as the 40 cases continued to generate crippling costs.
In California, the consolidated cases pressed forward, with plaintiffs demanding discovery that diverted industry resources from lawful trade. The Brady Center’s narrative ignored ATF regulations and California’s strict laws.
In 2003, the litigation’s threat was compounded by cultural forces. The release of Runaway Jury on October 17, 2003, brought the plaintiffs’ anti-gun narrative to the big screen. By portraying a gun manufacturer as negligent for criminal misuse, the film attempted to sway public opinion, casting firearm manufacturers as villains in a national debate.
In California, the In re Firearm Cases remained a focal point. On May 2, 2003, the San Diego Superior Court dismissed claims against manufacturers, ruling their actions were too remote from the alleged harms. This was a significant victory, but the plaintiffs appealed, prolonging the industry’s financial burden. The ongoing costs of defending the 40 national cases continued to threaten manufacturers’ survival, with smaller companies facing bankruptcy.
The California litigation reached its conclusion in 2005. On February 9, 2005, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) affirmed the dismissal of all remaining claims in the In re Firearm Cases, finding no evidence that lawful manufacturing constituted a public nuisance or violated the UCL. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to hold manufacturers liable for third-party crimes, upholding the Second Amendment’s sanctity. This ruling was a triumph, vindicating our defense that the lawsuits were an overreach designed to circumvent democratic processes.
Nationally, the toll of the 40 lawsuits was catastrophic, with defense costs estimated in the hundreds of millions. The cumulative financial strain pushed the industry to the brink, threatening to eliminate the supply of firearms and render the Second Amendment a hollow right. The National Rifle Association (NRA), manufacturers, and industry advocates warned that without federal intervention, the lawsuits would achieve their goal: bankrupting the industry through legal attrition.
Relief came with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2005 (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903). The PLCAA was a direct response to the litigation wave, including California’s In re Firearm Cases. Its key provisions:
Passed with strong bipartisan support (Senate: 70-27; House: 283-144), the PLCAA was driven by the NRA and industry advocates who highlighted the litigation’s existential threat. As counsel, I saw the PLCAA as a lifeline, protecting my clients from financial ruin and ensuring Americans’ access to firearms. Without it, the industry—and the Second Amendment—would have collapsed under the weight of activist-driven lawsuits.
The In re Firearm Cases and the broader 40-case litigation wave were a calculated assault on the Second Amendment, using public nuisance and negligence claims to bankrupt the firearms industry. California’s lawsuits, backed by the Brady Center and amplified by cultural forces like Runaway Jury, came perilously close to succeeding, threatening to dismantle the industry and nullify Americans’ constitutional rights. The PLCAA’s passage in 2005 was a decisive victory, but the fight continues. California’s AB 1594 (2022) and cases like Soto v. Bushmaster (2019, $73 million settlement) exploit PLCAA exceptions, signaling renewed threats.
At The Davis Law Firm (www.calgunlawyers.com), we remain steadfast in defending the Second Amendment. The In re Firearm Cases showed how far anti-gun activists will go to undermine liberty. The PLCAA was our shield, but vigilance is the price of freedom.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.