Nathaniel Getz, executor of the estate of Suzanne Fountain — his mother, who was killed in the March 22, 2021, shooting — filed a lawsuit on March 10 against Sturm, Ruger & Company, which manufactured the gun used in the shooting. On March 27, a second lawsuit was filed on behalf of the estates of Neven Stanisic, Jody Waters, Denny Stong, Lynn Murray and Kevin Mahoney, who were also killed that day, with the same legal premise.
The lawsuits have been entered in Connecticut because that’s where Ruger is headquartered. But even if its HQ were in Colorado, restrictive state laws that protect the gun industry would have made it impossible to conduct the civil suit in the Centennial State.
Thanks to a bill that has passed both chambers of the Colorado Legislature, that could soon change.
In 2000, as a reaction to a background-check measure implemented after the Columbine shootings, the then-Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law giving the gun industry immunity from civil lawsuits related to its role in mass shootings, while also prohibiting firearms manufacturers, importers and dealers from being held liable as third parties or found responsible for damages related to physical and emotional injuries — and even death — from firearms.
That law also instructed courts to require those who brought forth any civil lawsuits to pay the attorney fees of the gun industry after each case was inevitably dismissed.
“It's been on the books for 23 years,” says state Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis, who rallied at the Capitol back then to encourage gun control. This year, she’s the co-sponsor — along with Senator Chris Kolker and representatives Javier Mabrey and Jennifer Parenti — of the bill dubbed the Jessi Redfield Ghawi Act for Gun Violence Victims’ Access to Justice and Firearms Industry Accountability. The act will allow civil lawsuits to move forward.
It has passed both chambers of the legislature and is waiting for a final vote in the Senate to approve the renaming of the act to honor Redfield Ghawi, who was killed in the 2013 Aurora theater shooting. After that, it will head to Governor Jared Polis's desk for a signature.
Until then, families must seek other venues for accountability and legal justice, which is exactly what the Boulder shooting families did in Connecticut.
Getz’s lawsuit alleges that Ruger designed the AR-556 pistol used in the March 22, 2021, shooting specifically to skirt laws regulating rifles.
“The AR-556 pistol variant featured the same rail system as other AR-15 style rifles while having an altered barrel and stock to evade federal classification as a rifle,” the lawsuit says. “Ruger designed the AR-556 such that it would utilize the same ammunition and magazines as the AR-15s. As a result of Ruger’s design choice, the AR-556 is more deadly than other pistols on the market.”
The lawsuit also accuses Ruger of selling the AR-556 with stabilizing braces that “essentially allowed the weapon to be converted to a rifle while still preserving its classification as a pistol for regulatory purposes.” These actions add up to a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act first adopted in 1973, says Andrew Garza of the Connecticut Trial Firm, which is handling the case along with Denver firm Harding & Associates.
By marketing what was in essence a short-barreled rifle as a pistol, Garza says Ruger allowed the Boulder shooter to purchase a weapon online that would have otherwise been illegal to purchase in Colorado. In the National Firearms Act, rifles are more heavily regulated than pistols.
“In the wake of a lot of these shootings, there was increased regulation on assault rifles and the AR-15 style weapon,” Garza says. “They're notoriously used and selected by shooters because they deliver maximum damage quickly.”
Ruger took advantage of gray areas in federal law to avoid the increased regulation, according to the suit.
“They chop the barrel down a little bit," Garza explains. "They put on something called a pistol brace, which is just like a stock functionally, and lo and behold, you have a pistol, but it fires just like a rifle.”
That deception shouldn’t be allowed under CUTPA, Garza says. That's key because the federal Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms Act specifies that for a person to sue gun manufacturers, the alleged conduct must fit under a specific set of exceptions, including a predicate exception allowing civil lawsuits against members of the gun industry should they violate a state or federal trade regulation law.
“Ruger’s marketing promoted its AR-556s for mass casualty assaults,” the lawsuit says. “Ruger’s marketing was unethical. Ruger’s marketing was immoral. Ruger’s marketing was unscrupulous. Ruger’s marketing was oppressive. Ruger’s marketing was reckless.”
According to CUTPA, marketing that fits those definitions is specifically prohibited. Garza also points to the 2019 Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International case — litigated in Connecticut — as a reason the lawsuit can go through in the state. In that case, the court held that the Sandy Hook families were correct that Bushmaster’s marketing played a role in the deaths of their children.
“At least in Connecticut, there is well-established precedent from only a few years ago that says we can use this state statute to sue gun manufacturers,” Garza says. “If they use a weapon made by a different manufacturer who was in a different state, or the manufacturer who made the weapon was headquartered in a different state, you may not have a remedy. Whether that's fair, I have strong opinions on, but fortunately for our clients, the case could be brought here.”
Colorado, Arkansas and Indiana are the only states that have laws in place giving the gun industry extra immunity from civil lawsuits. The first part of the Jessi Redfield Ghawi Act would repeal that language. The rest of the bill would place language in state statutes specifying that the firearms industry is held to the same legal standards as other businesses and affirming that all of Colorado’s other statutes — such as the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 — apply to the gun industry as well.
“The majority of the firearms industry is probably following the rules,” Jaquez Lewis says. “It's making sure that these bad ones are accountable. We want them to be as accountable as any other business.”
Jessica Ghawi's parents, Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, tried to sue Lucky Gunner, the online dealer that sold ammunition to the Aurora theater shooter, for negligence in Colorado and wound up going bankrupt.
“Once we started finding out information about our case, we were kind of stunned how easy it was for the killer to get his hands on not only weapons, but tactical gear and ammunition,” Sandy Phillips says. “We were wondering where the checks and balances were, because there weren't any.”
The act named after their daughter, which would prevent other families from facing the same fate, is part of a package of four bills that the new state Gun Violence Prevention Caucus has put forth.
Along with Jaquez Lewis and Kolker’s bill, the caucus pushed legislation instituting a three-day waiting period between purchase of a firearm and delivery, expanding who is allowed to apply for Extreme Risk Protection Orders and raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21.
Each bill has passed both chambers, but they're currently waiting on concurrence from each of their respective chambers of origin on amendments before heading to Polis. Jaquez Lewis says Polis can help meet the call of those impacted by gun violence by signing all four bills when they reach his desk
The Jessi Redfield Gawhi Act will serve as the people’s enforcement mechanism for the other three bills, the sponsors say.
“We have certain places in the state who really don't want to enforce red flag laws,” Kolker notes. “By doing civil action here, we can go after the bad actors, the dealers, the manufacturers who are violating the law that we have if those laws aren't being enforced.”
The legislative package is also responsive to the pleas of advocates, particularly young people who have been flooding the Capitol asking for change after violence at East High School reached a peak with two shootings over the past two months.
“Unfortunately, since 1999 there's been different groups of young people going through the stages in life and finding that voice because of these awful events,” Kolker says. “This package of bills we put together, this is just adding to our tool kit to help reduce gun violence.”
The families who have brought lawsuits against Ruger have the same aim, Garza says.
“They feel very passionately that the laws need to be better,” he concludes. “The primary concern is they want something to come from the death of their loved one, for change to happen. … We have to do more as a society to protect our communities. Anything that we can do to protect our kids, I think we have an obligation to do, morally and otherwise.”
