various distributors and dealers to whom they sell feed the criminal market this is not a lawsuit that could have been brought ten years ago because we would've known that about  on the theory that the weapon in question should not have been sold to the general public addle because of its risks outweighed its social benefits that is precisely conduct the marketing or sales conduct or district distribution habits of the defense it was not about the negligent furnishing of weapons it was not about the carelessness of the sales sales practices of the reckless so given that the manufacturers have access to knowledge about which distributors closer problem with retailers has a problem which people are catering to the criminal market here into multiple sales catering negligence theory in california under section three zero two which california follows of the second restatement of the reasonably foreseeable misconduct of others does not insulate the findings from liability exempt from this general principle again if there had ever been a public policy in california to exempt manufacturers to distributors of handguns from i believe it would have been easy to write very straightforward language other states of facts that posed harm to some common interest to the public and must be a substantial and reasonable interference with a public right among the public rights of interest for the right to public health could of course you know anything about joseph eleven or the other planets or had ever heard of them but that's not what defines the scope of their duty what defines the scope of their duty as the foreseeability of the kind of harm if you're in the business of selling handguns through distribution channels that favor reckless methods of distributing handguns to criminals and you think if people are charged as a result that to me is close to being foreseeable as a matter of law certainly not unforeseeable as a matter of law the kind of harm frankly that we're looking at here is very foreseeable for a california law case on point warrantless r k o disc jockey holds a contest radio station holds a contest  it was likely that if he was feeding this malarial population the mosquitoes they would go forth and sting and your citizens in the area and if you could take the mosquito to the pond maybe there might be a lo and the reason why i pointed out your honor is because the players have alleged i'm number of the number of times to to try and get their point across and some of those multiple sales of straw purchases  traces and all of these these these issues but there's no brain in the complaint that any one of the defendants actually engaged in any of these things now multiple sales or illegal drug manufacturers did anything wrong or violated any statutes or or should be held liable for selling to any one of these amorphous distributors retailers that they allude to they're not here where are the conduct is that we shouldn't be selling certain worthless people who are not here why should we sell to them well perhaps some of the break the law well you know chrysler you shouldn't be selling to your distributors either because you know they sell to people who drink  right in probably dismissing it like this is claims there's no duty here that extends the clock or our star or any other manufacturers record we haven't addressed the role and versus christian factors and i think that was important for the district court hearing handgun rifle for a two to five caliber which is too small to fit a nine millimeter bullet which was found at both shooting scenes i've heard counsel talk about the fact that they in san francisco with the keys left in someone rips off the car and decides to crash an interest someone we have not held someone liable for the criminal acts of another and those follow through the firearms i primarily i also heard counsel talk about is our concerns about how we have addressed hears arguments in so far as public nuisance your honor we took councils on cases and either traffic problems or on the sidewalks dilapidated buildings that cause fire concerns to neighbors has the incident orchards to cause problems for neighboring farmers all of these derived will we allow suits against louisville slugger because the one who will face a baseball bat instead of hitting home runs decides to commit mayhem i think not and i think not here your honor i would love to address questions but i find myself running out of time i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for my brother in san diego  by china nor of with respect to the distribution with respect to the final point of sale from a retailer with respect to any success of our high has asked the question well why are the links in the chain important there's been talk about the lengthy chain that these products go through before they reach the ultimate consumer in this case mr perot question of fact the discussion of the other didn't that it was reluctant to climb out on a limb well what is going to have to do is climb out of this thing winds of the california supreme court would and if you know the california supreme court's help in predicting that as i