Families of Uvalde shooting victims are being pushed to sue gun manufacturers

The relatives of the victims of the Uvalde school shooting may seek to sue gunmaker Daniel Defense for the use of their weapon in the assault, but Texas law may make such an endeavor difficult.

“I can’t tell with confidence what the families will decide to do,” Jillian Bliss, a Texas attorney with an experience in constitutional law and state and federal government concerns, said. “However, under Texas law, suing a gun manufacturer is a little more difficult than it was in the Sandy Hook case.”

Salvador Ramos, 18, murdered his grandmother before driving to Robb Elementary School and exchanging gunfire with officers before entering two classrooms.

Ramos used a $1,870 Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 weapon, which is lawfully marketed to anybody over the age of 18 who passes a background check, to murder at least 19 children and two instructors.

Previous massacres, most notably the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012, have resulted in lawsuits with varying results. The Sandy Hook massacre lawsuit against Remington Arms prompted the company to declare bankruptcy in 2018.

The Sandy Hook victims’ families settled for $73 million, appearing to be a huge victory for gun control proponents against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields gun makers and dealers from accountability.

However, Connecticut law differs from Texas law, and Bliss noted that the families would most likely need to bring their complaint in Texas rather than, say, Georgia, where Daniel Defense is based.

“Many of Texas’ consumer protection laws concern misleading commerce or deceptive tactics, and the families may have to establish that the gun was not merely advertised or sold to someone fraudulently or in a manner that took advantage of them.”

“There is a clause in the legislation that specifically addresses selling to someone with a mental handicap […] However, it would have to be established that the weapons dealer was aware of the mental handicap as the gun’s purchaser, and it would have to be linked to the purchase order.”

It is unknown what information may have come up in Ramos’ background check and if that information would have disqualified his purchase, but it would almost certainly be the crucial issue of any Texas complaint.

The Uvalde shooting sparked a flurry of legal conjecture, including the passage of new legislation in California just hours after the shooting that allows citizens to sue people who sell illicit guns.

“Victims of gun violence, as well as clear-headed law enforcement authorities,” O’Brien said, “should consider directing their attention more strongly to the courts instead.” “Litigation has the potential to hold the country’s gun manufacturers and tens of thousands of dealers accountable for gun violence sooner than elected officials ever would.”

But it’s not just Uvalde who may explore legal action: Alejandro Celorio Alcantara, the legal assistant to Mexico’s Foreign Minister, encouraged his government to try to hold American manufacturers accountable, stating the corporations’ inability to avoid the injury is “negligence” and “the gun firms must be held responsible.”