From WNYC Studios, it's Brian Lair, a daily politics podcast. It's Thursday, June 2nd.

Now, if Congress won't do anything meaningful about gun violence, can victims themselves

do something big about it in court?

Have you heard this yet? A Brooklyn woman who was injured in that mass shooting on the

end train in April and Sunset Park is trying. Just this week, Eileen Sturor, if I'm saying her name

right, as reported in the Times, age 49 has filed a federal lawsuit in Brooklyn,

arguing that the manufacturer of the gun used in the attack should be held liable for the harms that followed.

The manufacturer is Glock.

Eileen Stur's lawsuit accuses Glock of intentionally trying to appeal to purchasers with criminal intent,

according to the times, by marketing the gun based on its high capacity, many bullets, and easy concealment.

So can a shooting victim win a suit like that when the product is being legally sold?

Could this kind of lawsuit be a wedge

into a broader classification of assault weapons as part of a criminal enterprise, even if Congress

won't call it by that name? And remember, this lawsuit comes just as we're awaiting a Supreme

Court decision that could force New York to suspend its own concealed carry restrictions for

anyone who has a concealed carry permit from Texas or any other state. So we'll talk about both of

these things now with Jake Charles, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke

University. Jake, thanks for coming on with us. Welcome to WNYC.

Thanks for having me. This lawsuit comes under provisions of a law that's really new in New York

State passed just last year. That's the first of its kind in the nation because it specifically

allows lawsuits against makers or sellers based on improper marketing.

Can you describe, is there something more to say about what's so unique about that law?

...