WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS - Two new lawsuits seek to make gun maker Smith & Wesson and others pay for the mass shooting and massacre at the Highland Park Independence Day Parade.
On Sept. 28, a collection of some of the biggest names in class action and mass action law filed lawsuits in Lake County Circuit Court against Smith & Wesson, the world’s largest maker of handguns and rifles, and the maker of the weapon allegedly used by the accused shooter on July 4 to kill seven and wound dozens more among those assembled to watch or participate in the parade in the North Shore suburb.
Among the law firms bringing litigation are: Romanucci & Blandin, of Chicago; Edelson P.C., of Chicago; and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, of New York. They are joined by attorneys from national anti-gun public policy groups Everytown USA and the Brady Campaign.
The lawsuits were filed on behalf of victims of the shootings, including those wounded and killed, and family members and others who witnessed the shootings or were otherwise traumatized by the loss of life and violence in that incident.
In addition to Smith & Wesson, the lawsuits also name as defendants the accused shooter, Robert Crimo III; Crimo’s father, Robert Crimo Jr.; and two gun sellers believed to have been the source of the weapon Crimo III allegedly used, identified as BudsGunShop.com LLC and Red Dot Arms Inc.
Crimo III has been charged with 117 counts in connection with the shootings, including three counts for each victim. He faces charges of murder, attempted murder and aggravated battery against the victims. He remains in Lake County Jail awaiting trial.
While noting Crimo III is accused of pulling the trigger that day, attorneys for the victims said they believe the other defendants should also be held “accountable” and liable for the accused shooter’s actions.
They noted Crimo’s father helped him obtain guns, including the weapon allegedly used in the shootings, even after the younger Crimo had revealed himself to be violent and dangerous, and was classified as a “clear and present danger” in a report to the Illinois State Police.
And they said the gun sellers sold and shipped the firearm allegedly used in the attack to Crimo III, even though they knew Crimo III was a resident of Highland Park and that community had banned ownership of that kind of weapon, which the city of Highland Park classified as an assault rifle.
However, the attorneys particularly targeted their comments and complaint against Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the so-called M&P (Military & Police) rifle used by Crimo III in the shootings.
“The important thing to note is that the shooter did not act on his own,” said attorney Alla Lefkowitz, of Everytown Law, while speaking at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. “What happened in Highland Park on July 4th was the result of deliberate choices made by certain members of the industry.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys assert Smith & Wesson should be held liable in the shootings for its role in marketing and promoting the use of such firearms, particularly to young males.
In introducing the lawsuit, attorney Antonio Romanucci and others repeatedly characterized the Highland Park mass shooting as “predictable and preventable.”
In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege: “The mass shooting at Highland Park’s Fourth of July Parade was the foreseeable and entirely preventable result of a chain of events initiated by Smith & Wesson.
“For years, the manufacturer has deceptively and unfairly marketed its assault rifles in a way designed to appeal to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males - the same category of consumers whom Smith & Wesson has watched, time after time, commit the type of mass shooting that unfolded again on the Fourth of July in Highland Park.”
The complaint notes Smith & Wesson firearms have been used in other mass shootings, including massacres in Aurora, Colorado, and Parkland, Florida.
The complaint asserts Smith & Wesson’s marketing is allegedly precisely targeted at young males, like Crimo III.
The plaintiffs assert Smith & Wesson marketing glorifies the use of such rifles and handguns, often highlighting the thrill of using weapons in combat, while using advertisements they say are modeled “after first-person shooter video games” and employing social media influencers to “pump up civilian purchases by showing followers how to use M&P assault rifles in combat-like situations…”
The plaintiffs assert Smith & Wesson has allegedly profited from the mass shootings, thanks to spikes in gun and ammunition purchases when progressive politicians and activists call for new firearm ownership restrictions or outright bans following the violence.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys include some of those who participated in litigation against gun manufacturer Remington over the school shooting and massacre of 28 people, including numerous children, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012.
That lawsuit resulted in a $73 million settlement, marking the first time plaintiffs had successfully secured payment from a gun manufacturer for a mass killing.
Despite the shootings, American voters have remained heavily divided on the question of whether to impose new restrictions on firearms ownership, and how to do so without violating Americans’ rights to gun ownership under the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has consistently declared state and local efforts to ban gun ownership to be constitutionally questionable, if not unconstitutional outright.
Faced with such difficulty in sidestepping the constitutional roadblocks to gun restrictions, some anti-gun activists have turned to the courts, seeking to slam gun makers with huge verdicts or settlements for criminal actions taken by others, to advance their “gun violence prevention” agenda.
In the Highland Park litigation, the plaintiffs use similar language, claiming they are continuing a campaign to hold gun manufacturers “accountable” for violence wreaked on communities using weapons the manufacturers have made, despite gun makers' historic immunity to such lawsuits in the past.
“Actions like the ones filed today are critical to exposing the gun industry’s deadly narrative,” said attorney H. Christopher Boehning, of the Paul Weiss firm.
During the press conference, Boehning said he believes the Sandy Hook case results show the plaintiffs now have the right legal theory and legal team to "go toe to toe with the gun industry and seek justice."
Ari Scharg, of the Edelson firm, said victims of the Highland Park shooting “now have a historic opportunity to hold one of the most powerful and profitable gun companies accountable for inspiring generations of mass shooters.”
And Erin Davis, an attorney at the Brady Campaign, described the lawsuits as an effort “to stop the irresponsible and unlawful sale and marketing of weapons of war like the ones used in the Highland Park attack.”
“We hope this lawsuit will prevent future tragedies, save more families from pain, and keep our communities safe,” Davis said.
Smith & Wesson did not reply to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon from The Cook County Record.