The old John Luigi Ferri page here should perhaps be corrected to read:

Gian Luigi FERRI

July 1, 1993

Apparently dissatisfied with the legal services he had received from the law firm of Pettit & Martin, he entered their offices on the 34th floor of 101 California Street at 2:57 PM and within 4 minutes had killed 8 people and wonded 6. He then is reported to have killed himself. More of the story from the local newspaper

featured as the first disgruntled clients at - then there are some of the clinton lawyers on the list - Paul Wilcher, Vincent W. Foster, Jr, Ed Willey, Gandy Baugh and Ron Brown - And lawyers don't seem to get it that a lot of people hate lawyers.

A failed businessman Ferri did what others only dream about doing. In 1993, the avenging angel of all those screwed by lawyers, killed eight and wounded six, as he rampaged through the Pettit and Martin Law offices in San Francisco. Fearing legal recourse, he turned the gun on himself. On May 8, 1997, a San Francisco judge dismissed a lawsuit against Miami-based gun manufacturer Navegar Inc., saying the company wasn't responsible for the July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri rampage that left eight people dead. Superior Court Judge James Warren ruled two years before that victims and their survivors could try to prove that the Miami-based Navegar Inc. had designed the Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic pistol for mass killing and marketed it in a way that would appeal to criminals. The Mass Murderer Hit List

People Don't Kill People - Guns Kill people - lawyers say the TEC-9 is responsible

The lawyers need someone to blame. Ferri is dead, so they go after the manufacture of the gun. Will they go after the manufactures of knives next - after all they "should have known" that their product was dangerous. And knives do not even have warning labels that they could be dangerous. Wonder when Boeing will be sued by the victims of US cruse missiles.

California banned the TEC-9 by name in 1989. In 1991, the District of Columbia passed a law to hold makers of assault weapons strictly liable if one of the weapons were used to kill someone in D.C. In response, Intratec renamed the gun "TEC-DC9" to evade the law. Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling, and the Court held oral argument on July 21, 1999. Dennis Henigan, the director of the Legal Action Project, argued that Navegar sold a weapon "designed to be spray-fired from the hip" and "marketed as an assault-type pistol," and urged the court to find that Navegar owed a duty of care that was violated by its negligent decision "to sell a military-style weapon to the general public." One of the three judges on the panel agreed that the evidence showed "no responsible user would have any use for this weapon." The court is expected to reach its decision within 3 months of the argument.

The Project represents Stephen Sposato, Michelle Scully, and Carol Kingsley, the surviving spouses of three of the people killed at 101 California. The Project also represents Carol Ernsting, the mother of one of the victims. The law firms of Morrison & Foerster; Cotchett & Pitre; Jaffe, Trutanich, Scatena & Blum; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe are the Project's co-counsel for these plaintiffs. LEGAL ACTION PROJECT - LITIGATION DOCKET August 1999

By Frank M. Pitre, Cotchett, Pitre & Simon
Burlingame, California

Intratec ads at the Violence Policy Center

Do Concealed Carry States Have Lower Rates of Violent Crime?

The official San Francisco medical examiner's report on Gian Luigi Ferri concludes he was not on drugs when he killed eight people in a high-rise at 101 California St. The 10-page report of the autopsy and toxicological tests on Ferri, 55, was released this week. Ferri died of a single gunshot wound to the hard palate, according to the report. Toxicology tests found no evidence Ferri was on drugs or had any alcohol in his system during the rampage. Ferri's body was cremated July 15. [Published on 30 July 1993, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS] ... more newspaper clippings from around the country - Boy would they have had a field day if drugs were found.

Is the Legal Community really Against Violence - or does it just want to control it's monopoly on the use of Violence?

Legal Community Against Violence - "formed in the wake of the senseless killing at 101 California Street on July 1, 1993, in which eight people were murdered and six more wounded. ... dedicated to reducing gun violence through legislation, litigation and education.

From their stats ... The toll on our society is staggering: In 1995 alone, 35,957 Americans were killed with firearms, in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. Notice that they omit the 2 million Vietnamese killed by the US

More than 15 American children (ages 1-19) were killed with firearms per day in 1993; the average cost of treating a gunshot victim in California was more than $25,883; and the cost of direct medical care for gunshot victims and fatalities was $703 million. [Notice that they seem more concerned about the cost here] Firearms now surpass automobiles as the number one cause of injury-related deaths in California. Lets get real - in 1996 there were 8,465 deaths in the 5-14 year old group - 2,002 from Motor vehicle accidents, 513 from Homicide and legal intervention. [source] In the 15-24 year old group, of the 32,699 deaths in 1996, 10,624 were from Motor vehicle accidents while 6,548 were Homicide and legal intervention. [source:] And not all Homicides involved guns And what is "legal intervention" - is that when a cop kills someone with a gun?

If the legal community were really against violence they would be supporting

For those of you who missed it, there was an anti-gun Rally on the West Steps of the Capitol in Sacramento, California on Wednesday, May 10, 1995. list of groups, corporations, and indiviuals who were supportive of this Rally.

... a 1994 poll of San Francisco alone showed 16 percent of the city's households had guns, far below the state average of 41 percent. -Shooting spree leads to sharper look at gun laws
Gun dealer Bob Posner: "As soon as people find out what I do, they immediately think I'm a bad person." By RACHEL GORDON, San Francisco Examiner Handguns in America October 19-22, 1997

"If you support gun control, here are some resources you will find quite useful." - The Gun Control Page

Why progressives should
stop pushing for more
gun control laws

-- There are already thousands of them, too many of which don't work. Every
ineffective law brings government into disrepute.

-- Prohibition of something that large numbers of citizens want always fail,
witness the war on the drugs. It merely increases the value of the prohibited
item and changes the distributors from honest people to crooks.

-- Gun control laws are highly divisive to no good end. Since they don't work
well, why get everyone so mad about them? Progressives should instead start
finding issues that make people happy.

-- Treating gun laws as a national issue exacerbates cultural conflict, such as
those between rural and urban, east and west, wealthy and not so well off.
Telling rural Westerners to get rid of their guns is like telling an urban
blacks to stop reading African-American books.

-- There is no evidence that members of the NRA murder people at a higher rate
than non-members. It is insulting to gun owners to speak as though they did.

-- The push for gun restrictions and prohibition is interwoven with the drive
to restrict other citizen liberties and erode democracy. Progressives once
opposed such moves, but in recent have been no-shows. Progressives need to
became civil libertarians again.

-- America no longer has a strong, reliable democracy. It has been deeply
corrupted and is being brutally manipulated. We are also losing our major
defense against tyranny: the spirit and will of the people. An armed citizenry
is a reasonable back-up plan.

-- People who drive around cities in four-wheel drive SUVs shouldn't lecture
others on what safety precautions they should take.

-- The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear
arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
I didn't say that. Thomas Jefferson did.

-- Progressives should stop treating average Americans as though they were
alien creatures. Progressives haven't just lost elections because of their
issues but because of their attitudes as well.

By Sam Smith
The Progressive Review

Add/View Comments to this page