BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and
its sister organization the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence are dedicated to reducing
gun deaths and injuries through education, leg-
islative reform, and litigation. The history of the
organizations can be traced back to 1974 when
Dr. Mark Borinsky, a victim of gun violence,
established Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), a
grassroots organization. Borinsky’s goal was to
create common sense gun laws. He was joined in 1975 by Nelson “Pete” Shields, who had lost a son to a serial killer. In 1983, the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence (CPHV) was formed by
Shields to focus on education and research in
GUN CONTROL while the HCI remained a LOBBYING
group.
In 1985, current chairperson Sarah Brady
joined the group after her husband, Jim Brady,
was shot and seriously wounded during the
1981 assassination attempt on President
RONALD REAGAN. In 2001, Handgun Control
was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence and the Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence was renamed the Brady Center to
Prevent Gun Violence. According to the Brady
Campaign website, its mission remains the
same: to “work to enact and enforce sensible gun
laws, regulations and public policies through
grassroots activism, electing pro-gun control
public officials and increasing public awareness
of gun violence.”
The legal arm of the Brady Center is the
Legal Action Project (LAP). Its goal is to “represent
gun violence victims and the public interest
in the courts.” For example, LAP provides free
legal assistance to victims in lawsuits against gun
manufacturers, dealers, and owners. And it
pushes for legislation that will force the gun
industry to improve the safety in gun design and
to change negligent methods of marketing, sales,
and distribution. Until LAP became involved in
several landmark civil cases gun makers and sellers
were not held responsible for gun-related
deaths and injuries. The logic was that only the
individual shooter was responsible.
In Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 89 Cal.Rptr.2d.
146 (Cal.App. 1999), LAP helped obtain the first
appellate court decision to hold that a gun manufacturer
can be held liable for its NEGLIGENCE
in designing and selling a gun for use in crime,
and promoting it so that it would appeal to individuals
with violent intentions. On July 1, 1993,
Gian Luigi Ferri entered a high rise office building
in San Francisco, California, with two semiautomatic
assault weapons manufactured and
sold by Navegar, Inc., plus one other gun. He
opened fire in the hallways and offices of the
lower floors of the building, killing eight people
and wounding six others before he shot and
killed himself.
The survivors and relatives of the deceased
brought suit against Navegar, Inc., on three legal
theories: COMMON LAW negligence, negligence
per se, and STRICT LIABILITY for engaging in an
ultrahazardous activity. The trial court dismissed
the case, holding that the victims could
not sue the gun manufacturer for the actions of
the gunman Ferri.
The case was then brought before the Court
of Appeals of California. The court reversed on
the single issue of common law negligence.
Judge J. Anthony Kline, writing for the court,
held that, “Fundamental fairness requires that
those who create and profit from commerce in a
potentially dangerous instrumentality should be
liable for conduct that unreasonably increases
the risk of injury above and beyond that necessarily
presented by their enterprise.” The court
referred to Navegar’s manufacture and marketing
of the TEC-9 semi-automatic weapons used
in the killings. It found that the gun had no
legitimate civilian purpose; it was a weapon
designed solely for the efficient killing of large
numbers of people. The court also held that the
TEC-9 was advertised in a manner to appeal to
persons with violent or criminal tendencies.
Navegar advertised the TEC-9 as being “tough as
your toughest customer,” “paramilitary,” and
providing “excellent resistance to fingerprints.”
In August 2001, Navegar appealed to the
Supreme Court of California to reverse the decision
of the appellate court. The court ruled in
favor of the gun manufacturer, but declined to
address the broader issues concerning negligent
business practices of the gun industry. Instead,
the court pointed to a state statute that precluded
the particular type of claim brought
against the gun manufacturer. In response to
this ruling, the California Legislature, in September
2002, became the first state to repeal a
statute that gave special legal IMMUNITY to the
gun industry. The repeal was part of a group of
far-reaching gun laws that were passed by the
California Assembly and signed by Governor
Gray Davis.
In addition to supporting negligence lawsuits
against gun manufacturers, the Brady Center
attempts to ensure that gun legislation is
fairly interpreted. An example is United States v.
Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D.Tex.1999).
Timothy Joe Emerson was under a domestic
RESTRAINING ORDER, which prohibited him
from coming into contact with his estranged
wife and her daughter. As such, he was not
allowed to posses a firearm, since federal law 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) prohibits firearm possession
while under a civil protective order. Emerson
was indicted for violation of the law when he
allegedly waved a weapon in front of his wife, and then threatened to shoot his wife and her
boyfriend. The federal judge dismissed the
indictment against Emerson because it violated
the “right to bear arms” provision of the SECOND
AMENDMENT.
The United States appealed the decision and
the center filed an AMICUS CURIAE brief in support
of the government’s position. In October
2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court’s ruling. In February 2002, Emerson
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear
the case.
The Brady Center is also integral in shaping
new gun policy. Perhaps its biggest success came
with the 1993 passage of the Brady Bill, which
went into effect on February 28, 1994. The law
requires a background check on any individual
who attempts to purchase a handgun and a fiveday
waiting period for handgun purchases. In
1998, the law was extended to included long
guns (i.e., rifles and shotguns). In 2001, the
Brady Center announced that in the eight years
since the law was in effect, gun deaths in the
United States dropped from 39,595 in 1993 to
28,874 in 1999, a 27 percent decline.
With the election of GEORGE W. BUSH as
president in 2002, and the gain of Republican
seats in both the House and Senate in 2002,
opponents of gun control gained ground. In
early 2003, legislation to give the gun industry
legal immunity from lawsuits brought by the
victims of gun violence was introduced in Congress.
The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center
were at the center of the debate, fighting to
prevent the “weakening of our nation’s gun
laws.”
FURTHER READINGS
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.Available online at
(accessed on June 12, 2003).
“Government Figures Show Gun Crimes Down, Brady Bill
Successful.” June 5, 2000. CNN.com: Inside Politics.
Available online at (accessed on June 12, 2003).
Legal Action Center. Available online at (accessed on June 12, 2003).
