At the same time, courts in New York and California in the last three weeks have rejected high-profile claims by individual victims of gun violence, deciding that gun makers could not be held responsible for their injuries.
Lawyers for the cities and gun-control groups that initiated the lawsuits say the cases are still in their infancy, and may yet produce huge judgments against gun makers.
But a series of setbacks suggest that cities face formidable obstacles in holding gun makers responsible for crimes committed with handguns.
N.Y. lawsuit dismissed
The latest setback occurred Aug. 10 when a trial judge in New York dismissed a lawsuit by state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that sought to hold gun makers and distributors accountable for hundreds of gun killings there each year.
The judge said the gun makers had little or no control over the stores that sell their firearms and could not be responsible if their weapons fell into the hands of criminals.
"New York is not alone; this is happening all over the country where other cases are being dismissed, but we still believe in the case and we are going to appeal," said Juanita Scarlett, a spokeswoman for Spitzer.
Since the suits were filed, a handful of companies have been offering handguns with new safety features such as internal locks and indicators showing whether a gun is loaded.
Others, such as Smith & Wesson, are trying to develop so-called smart-gun technology that would prevent anyone but a gun's owner from using it.
Smith & Wesson had agreed earlier to sweeping changes in the way it designs and markets guns in exchange for protection from the municipal lawsuits - but is nonetheless a defendant in some of them. Furthermore, gun owners angered at the company's agreement with the Clinton administration boycotted it, cutting into sales. Earlier this year, the gun maker was sold for a fraction of its previous value.
Gun-control goals unmet
