By Dave Workman
A federal judge in Vermont has dismissed a lawsuit against Century Arms which attempted to hold the company liable for a 2019 mass shooting in California, committed by a man who purchased the gun in Nevada and illegally brought it into the Golden State.
The decision, in a case known as Towner v. Century Arms and Romarm, S.A., may be read here. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, which is where Century Arms is incorporated.
Three people were killed and 17 more were wounded in the attack, which occurred at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. The murderer, identified as 19-year-old Santino William Legan, took his own life after engaging in a gun battle with responding police. Legan purchased the gun while residing in Nevada. No motive has been determined, but Legan had once resided in Gilroy and graduated from high school there.
The gun Legan used was a WASR-10, manufactured in Romania and imported by Romarm, S.A. Century Arms is the sole distributor of the rifle in the U.S.
According to the 10-page ruling by U.S. District Court Judge William K. Sessions III, a Barack Obama appointee, the plaintiffs in this case, Wendy Towner, et.al., asserted that Century Arms had “aided and abetted” Legan’s possession of the rifle, which is illegal to possess in California, but legal to purchase in Nevada.
In December 2024, the court denied Century Arms’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the company subsequently moved for reconsideration because the Supreme Court was considering the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. When the high court ruled in favor of Smith & Wesson, the Vermont court reconsidered Century Arms’ motion for dismissal, and has now granted it.
The Century Arms case, same as the Smith & Wesson case, swirled around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by former President George W. Bush, to protect the U.S. firearms industry from a series of “junk” lawsuits which sought to hold American gun makers liable for crimes committed by criminals using their firearms.
In his ruling, Judge Sessions noted, “In short, the plaintiff in Smith & Wesson, just as the Plaintiffs in this case, attempted to avoid PLCAA’s liability bar by arguing that a gun manufacturer had aided and abetted another’s violation of a firearms law, in this case illegal gun possession in California.
“Plaintiffs,” he concluded, “have not plausibly pled that the firearms violation in this case—illegal possession in California—was individually or systemically aided and abetted by the Defendants, such that Plaintiffs could satisfy PLCAA’s predicate exception. Therefore Plaintiffs’ claims, as pled, are barred by PLCAA.”
Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com
