@article{ref1,
title="Gun violence in court",
journal="Journal of law, medicine and ethics",
year="2020",
author="Wang, Susan and Gluck, Abbe R. and Nabavi-Noori, Alexander",
volume="48",
number="Suppl 4",
pages="90-97",
abstract="Litigation cannot solve a public health crisis. But litigation can be an effective complementary tool to regulation by increasing the salience of a public health  issue, eliciting closely guarded information to move public opinion, and prompting  legislative action. From tobacco to opioids, litigants have successfully turned to  courts for monetary relief, to initiate systemic change, and to hold industry  accountableFor years, litigators have been trying to push firearm suits into their  own litigation moment. But litigation against the gun industry poses special  challenges. Not only has the regulatory regime failed to prevent a public safety  hazard, Congress has consistently underfunded and understaffed the relevant  regulatory actors. And in 2005 it legislatively immunized the gun industry from suit  with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).This paper surveys the  field of litigation in response to gun violence, tracking the limited successes of  victims and stakeholders suing the gun industry. We find that victories remain  confined to individual actors and unlike high-impact public litigations in other  areas, aggregate class actions and major public litigation led by state attorneys  general are noticeably absent in the firearm context.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1073-1105",
doi="10.1177/1073110520979406",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073110520979406"
}