LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - Congregants at a synagogue that was the target of a 2019 fatal shooting incident can sue the gun shop that sold the assailant his gun, a California appeals court ruled, citing a statute passed after the attack that established the shooter didn’t possess a valid hunting license when he bought his gun.
Acknowledging the general rule against giving laws retroactive effect, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal said the California Supreme Court made an exception for statutes that clarify existing law. In this case, state law prohibits the sale of guns to people under age 21 unless they have a “valid, unexpired” hunting license.
John T. Earnest was 19 when he paid for an AR15-style rifle at San Diego Guns on April 13, 2019. He obtained a hunting license two days later, dated from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. After a 10-day waiting period, Earnest got his gun. On April 27, he opened fire at the Chabad of Poway synagogue, killing one and wounding others.
Yisroel Goldstein sued San Diego Guns, claiming negligence per se because the store had violated state law by selling Earnest a gun before his hunting license became valid. The trial judge dismissed his case, saying there was a difference between when a license was valid for hunting purposes and for the sale of a weapon.
The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal reversed the decision, saying that while there are good arguments for the trial court’s interpretation of the law, other facts undermine it. On Jan. 1, 2022, the Legislature modified the statute to state a permit is valid when the period specified for hunting “has commenced but not expired.” A committee report states the change was made specifically to address defense arguments in the Chabad of Poway case. The legislative history says the 2022 law was intended to “further define a valid and unexpired license.”
The California Rifle and Pistol Association opposed the law, saying “do we really need legislation to define what a valid hunting license is? Doesn’t the date printed on the license do that?”
“The undisputed facts establish that Earnest did not possess a `valid, unexpired hunting license’ in April 2019 when San Diego Guns sold him the rifle,” the appeals court concluded. “Earnest’s hunting license did not become valid until it could be used for engaging in hunting on July 1, 2019.”