The 2-1 appellate decision reversed a state trial judge's ruling handed down in May 1997, which had stated, in effect, that firearm manufacturers cannot be held accountable for the actions of criminals who use their legal product to commit illegal acts. Dennis Henigan, Director of the Legal Action Project of CPHV, argued before the appellate court on July 21, 1999, that Navegar sold a firearm "designed to be spray-fired from the hip," and "marketed as an assault-type pistol." First District Justice Paul Haerle, however, did not agree with Henigan -- an "assault-type" attorney who spray fires specious arguments from the lip.

      Haerle dissented from the ruling, saying his fellow-justices who supported the appeal were "ignoring the principle that Legislatures, not the courts, should make gun control policy." He also noted that federal and California lawmakers had already passed legislation restricting the manufacture and possession of firearms such as the ones used by Ferri. Navegar complied with the laws, while Ferri did not.

      "The terrible tragedy of July 1, 1993, in San Francisco will not soon be forgotten, nor should it be," wrote Haerle in his dissenting opinion. "But something else which needs to be kept in mind is the whole issue of responsibility.... Gian Luigi Ferri organized and executed every aspect of the tragedy underlying this litigation."

      It is expected that Navegar will appeal the decision, which would allow a trial to take place; no judge or jury has yet found Navegar liable.