The man at the gun show picked up a 2.2-pound rifle and pulled back the stock with an audible “chock,” presenting it to a host of YouTube segments.
Eric Schmid, owner of V1 Tactical, said, “When we set out to produce a small shotgun for kids in an AR-looking package, we were pretty sure we needed a ‘wow factor’ in the safety area. ” Video uploaded in Jan.
What Utah-based V1 Tactical produced was a smaller model of the AR-15, called the JR-15. Schmid was in Las Vegas in January to promote Small Arms, which the company promised to look and feel “like a mom and dad’s gun.”
Schmid demonstrated a safety pin intended to keep the weapon’s trigger locked. He and the host noted that this would likely prevent young children from wielding a firearm without their parents.
“It takes a lot of tension to be able to pull it out,” host Barrett Kendrick said.
“Your 12-year-olds are going to unlock it really quickly,” replied Schmid.
A bill passed by the Assembly on Thursday night would make marketing firearms to children and those who are not legally allowed to hold them civil liability. AB 1594 would allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers based on their marketing, one of the few exemptions to a federal ban on such lawsuits. The bill is now in the hands of the Senate.
Brought in by San Francisco Democrat Phil Ting, the bill is an attempt to ensure that gun manufacturers can’t object to lawsuits that target their marketing in a state court — an argument Smith & Wesson made last year in San Diego. did in court.
The proposal is similar to a bill passed in New York last year — one that survived a legal challenge from gun rights advocates in federal court on Wednesday.
“Unfortunately, it seems that not a day goes by before another tragic mass shooting,” Ting said. “We have guns in the hands of the wrong people and we have an industry that takes no responsibility for empowering the killers in our community.”
The bill alleges that some gun manufacturers market and sell “increasingly dangerous new products” ranging from ghost guns to bump stock, giving them an unfair commercial advantage over “more responsible competitors”. If passed, the bill would allow the Justice Department, county attorneys, city attorneys and the public to sue those practices.
Among the practices mentioned in the bill are:
- Manufacturers that make guns with features “best suited for assault purposes” rather than for hunting or self-defense.
- Guns are designed, sold or marketed in such a way that “anticipately promotes” their conversion to an illegal weapon, such as the conversion of a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon.
- Guns designed, sold or marketed to children or people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms.
The bill is part of a larger wave of more than a dozen gun control laws proposed by California Democrats ahead of today’s deadline for the bills to be moved from their original home.
On Wednesday, a day after at least 21 people were killed in a shootout with an AR-15 at an elementary school in Texas, Governor Gavin Newsom spoke at a press conference rallying support for AB 1594 and other gun control. For some gun marketing strategy rendition. measures.
“You guys have built and marketed the AR-15 for babies. For babies,” Newsom said. “And their logo is a pacifier with an AR-15 baby. These are extremists. They need to be called out. ,
Newsom was talking about the logos for the JR-15 and V1 Tactical, which are two skulls with a target in one eye and a pacifier in each mouth. One skull has a mohawk and the other has a pigtail.
Lawsuits against gun manufacturers are prohibited by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that the NRA called at the time “the most important piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years.”
President Joe Biden has said repealing the law is one of his administration’s top priorities, although his Justice Department continues to defend the law in court.
Federal law allowed six exceptions allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. One of them is for manufacturers who violate state or federal laws governing the marketing or sale of guns.
The law’s marketing exception allowed the parents of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre to successfully sue Remington Arms last year. A state trial in San Diego was allowed to proceed on the same grounds last year after the 2019 shooting.
Survivors of the shooting at a San Diego-area synagogue argued that Smith & Wesson used marketing “that attracted impulsive young men with military complexes to the unique potential of AR-15-style weapons in particular.” were likely to be attracted.”
Smith & Wesson responded that federal law protected them from such lawsuits, but a San Diego County Superior Court judge disagreed, citing a marketing exception.
Michael Schwartz, executive director of San Diego County Gun Owners, said the bill brought by Democrats this session and all others threatens gun ownership rights in California.
“If fully realized and implemented, this poses a major threat to gun rights,” Schwartz said. “There is no way to prevent anyone from using a product illegally. But you wouldn’t sue Ford for someone’s drinking and driving.”
When it comes to the JR-15 singled out by Newsom, Schwartz said that marketing is still directed towards those who can afford guns, the parents. And, he said, previous laws regulating the marketing of age-limited products like tobacco do not apply to guns.
“I don’t know what the perceived fear is, but I don’t fear that kids will become addicted to the AR-15,” Schwartz said. “It is the most popular long gun in the United States because it works in all kinds of conditions.”
