interesting NYT piece on phoney suits against gun makers

alan · September 1, 2002, 06:08 PM

Gun Industry Is Gaining Immunity Against Suits
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

spate of government litigation against the nation's gun companies has been stifled in 30 states, which have passed laws granting the industry immunity from civil lawsuits.

Those laws have all been enacted since 1998, when New Orleans became the first of almost three dozen cities and counties to file suits against gun manufacturers and dealers, accusing them of being public nuisances and seeking huge damage awards in a campaign similar to that waged against the tobacco industry.

The gun companies have won the aid of state legislatures to turn back the legal assault. Already, civil suits against the industry by New Orleans and Atlanta have been dismissed by state courts in Louisiana and Georgia because of the grants of immunity, even though the grants were passed after the suits were filed.

Suits by Detroit and Wayne County, Mich., are pending while a Michigan court determines whether a new law there granting immunity can be applied retroactively.

A striking exception to the trend is the California State Legislature, which passed a bill this week repealing a law that gave the gun industry immunity.

Gun control advocates hailed the repeal as a major defeat for the industry, but their victory may be short-lived. In Washington, there is a bill with 228 sponsors in the House of Representatives, that would provide federal immunity to the firearms industry. A similar bill in the Senate has 39 sponsors. No other industry has such blanket protection.

Some of the other lawsuits have survived motions to dismiss by the gun industry and have quietly moved into the discovery phase.

Lawyers for the cities, who have subpoenaed large numbers of internal firearms company documents and testimony by industry officials, say they have now found significant evidence of their central claim — that the gun industry maintains a distribution system that allows a large number of guns to fall into the hands of criminals and juveniles.

Specifically, the lawyers say, they have found evidence that the gun manufacturers failed to act on warnings by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that certain distributors were responsible for selling large numbers of guns that ended up with criminals.

"We haven't found one of the companies that uses this information from the government to check its distributors, or put them on notice or cut them off," said David Kairys, a professor at Temple University Law School who is advising many of the cities.

But Lawrence G. Keane, the general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the gun industry, denied that the cities had found any damaging evidence. "If there was evidence that manufacturers were willingly selling to criminals and juveniles, the A.T.F. would close them down," Mr. Keane said.

Mr. Kairys and some other lawyers for the cities say they do not expect to win large monetary settlements. Instead, they say, the cities are hoping to force the gun manufacturers to change their distribution system to make it harder for criminals to buy guns.

Mr. Keane said he was confident the municipal lawsuits would all be dismissed or decided in favor of the gun companies.

Several other cities' lawsuits, Mr. Keane pointed out, have already been dismissed by the courts because the judges did not accept the evidence or a new legal theory that the cities are trying to use: that the gun industry amounts to a public nuisance, like an industrial polluter, because it supplies guns to criminals.

In another suit, brought by Boston, a Massachusetts judge allowed the case to proceed but lawyers for the city dropped the case after discovery was completed. One lawyer close to the case said that a law firm doing some of the work for the city dropped out when it realized there would be little money to collect.

Mr. Keane said the lawyers for Boston gave up "because they realized these cases are dogs. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

Mr. Keane said he was confident the same result would occur in California, where 12 cities and counties have a consolidated lawsuit against the gun industry.

"The same documents were produced in Boston and California, many of the witnesses were the same, and many of the lawyers are the same," Mr. Keane said.

But Dennis Henigan, the legal director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a co-counsel in the California suits, said the situations in the Boston and California cases were very different. "We think the California cities will be able to put on a powerful case against the industry," Mr. Henigan said.

Mr. Henigan said the vote by the California Legislature this week to repeal the immunity was in response to an unpopular decision last year by the California Supreme Court ruling that victims of a rampage shooting at a law office in San Francisco in 1993 could not sue the manufacturer of the murder weapon because of the immunity law.

The new bill repealing the gun industry's immunity now goes to Gov. Gray Davis. Russ Lopez, a spokesman for Governor Davis, said the governor had not yet decided whether to sign the bill, though when the immunity law originally passed Mr. Davis voted against it as a member of the Assembly.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the gun industry deserved special protection because "it is irresponsible to hold a legitimate industry responsible for the criminal actions of a few people over which it has no control."

"We would not sue car manufacturers for injuries caused by a drunk driver," Mr. Arulanandam said.

Blackhawk · September 1, 2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

In Washington, there is a bill with 228 sponsors in the House of Representatives, that would provide federal immunity to the firearms industry. A similar bill in the Senate has 39 sponsors. No other industry has such blanket protection.

Second time I've read this article. The bills in Congress may not survive until the next Congress. Too bad!

However, I hope their substance somehow sneaks its way into the campaign rhetoric. Maybe it would smoke some of the latent gun grabbers out....

Standing Wolf · September 1, 2002, 07:14 PM

If I were a member of the firearms industry, I'd seriously advocate going after these cities and counties and states in court after the frivolous--but exceedingly expensive--law suits have been dismissed. I believe the cities, counties, and states could be prosecuted, in fact, under R.I.C.O. laws, especially since many of those involved have publicly admitted their only realistic hope is to bankrupt firearms manufacturers and distributors.

alan · September 1, 2002, 09:49 PM

Blackhawk:

You wrote in part:

"However, I hope their substance somehow sneaks its way into the campaign rhetoric. Maybe it would smoke some of the latent gun grabbers out...."

It mighr except to what end, given the shortness of memory displayed by the electorate, a not so small number of whom are GUN OWNERS.

alan · September 1, 2002, 10:01 PM

Standing Wolf:

You wrote:

If I were a member of the firearms industry, I'd seriously advocate going after these cities and counties and states in court after the frivolous--but exceedingly expensive--law suits have been dismissed. I believe the cities, counties, and states could be prosecuted, in fact, under R.I.C.O. laws, especially since many of those involved have publicly admitted their only realistic hope is to bankrupt firearms manufacturers and distributors.

__________________

Your point is certainly an interesting one, which has been raised previously by several people. Unfortunately, I suspect that the entities and individuals who brought these suits might well turn out to be "imune" from the sort of action you and others have suggested. Another aspect of this issue might be the following. Don't you think that the courts would cover for the political whores? Also, when was the last time you saw one lawyer sue another? Still another aspect of the matter might be the following. Does the firearms industry have the balls to bring such action?

I would dearly love to see such as you speak of actually take place, with any number of the people who started this foolishness sitting in jail, their lawyers having been disbarred. I simply do not think that that is something that's going to happen, sad to note.

By the way, there are 50 states, and legislation blocking these frivilous suits have been enacted in just 30 or so or them. I also, don't think that we will see a federal law that accomplishes the desired ending, not unless there are a lot of "new" faces in The Congress.

Blackhawk · September 1, 2002, 10:08 PM

alan:

Quote:

It mighr except to what end, given the shortness of memory displayed by the electorate, a not so small number of whom are GUN OWNERS.

The most effective lying politicians do is by never saying anything at all. Because of an appealing personality and giving lip service to pablum issues, voters "like" them. When 2/3 of poll respondents favor individual rights interpretation of the 2A, it's going to be harder for grabbers to hide, especially if they can't ignore the issue.

An appealing liar is still a liar, and not so appealing after being found out.

Byron Quick · September 2, 2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

One lawyer close to the case said that a law firm doing some of the work for the city dropped out when it realized there would be little money to collect.

Lawyers' most widely held weakness. I've used it several times.

alan · September 2, 2002, 01:00 PM

Blackhawk:

"The most effective lying politicans do is by never saying anything at all. Because of an appealing personality and giving lip service to pablum issues, voters "like" them. When 2/3 of poll respondents favor individual rights interpretation of the 2A, it's going to be harder for grabbers to hide, especially if they can't ignore the issue. "

Sounds good to me, with the following caveats.

Holding incumbents feet to the fire, ditto for "new faces", lest they wriggle and or squirm away takes constant effort and some work. Unfortunately, based on past performances, I'm given to wonder as to the following. Can the electorate, gun owners included, really be looked to, to make the "sacrifices" in time to provide the necessary effort? Maybe, maybe not. I lean, based on past performances, toward the latter conclusion, though I certainly could be wrong, and here I'd really like to be so proven.

Work and effort are certainly necessary, for media isn't on our side, they aren't even neutral, so even if polls show what you say, media will, to the greatest extent possible, ignore the facts of the matter, including such expressions of public opinion as do not fit "their druthers".

Re the apathy of people one would expect to be more engaged, consider the following. Next time you get together with friends, co-religionists, associates of one kind or another, and they all get to bitching about one thing or another, ask the following rhetorical question, then view the response or lack thereof. Ladies and gentlemen, or just gentlemen, or simply Hey guys, regarding whatever it is that has you all wound up, when was the last time you contacted a relevant elected or appointed offical concerning the cause of you angst? I have a fairly strong stomach, however in virtually all cases where I've asked this question, the results obtained, while not surprising, have been never-the-less slightly sickening, to say the least.

Obviously, efforts must continue, though one does sometimes wonder as to whether it is worth bothering with, for time spent fighting this battle could certainly be spent more enjoyably, as with the sipping of good scotch.

BenW · September 2, 2002, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Mr. Keane said he was confident the same result would occur in California, where 12 cities and counties have a consolidated lawsuit against the gun industry.

Does anyone have a link to which cities and counties are involved? I couldn't find any info on the NRA/ILA page.

Blackhawk · September 2, 2002, 01:20 PM

Agree, and that's one reason why I favor single issue PACs. Political parties have destroyed individual accountability of candidates to the electorate.

Everybody prioritizes issues. There are some that if a candidate is on the wrong side of, activists will crawl out of the woodwork to oppose.

Since most congressional seats will be filled by Republicans or Democrats, the place to attack is in the primaries. If a CD is essentially assured of going to a Democrat, then triage the candidates during the primary. "So and so says you must depend on calling 911 to protect yourself and your family if attacked by violent criminals because you cannot be trusted with a gun even though that right is protected by the Constitution."

Get a democrat who unequivocally supports the BOR in the general election if one's going to win anyway. Likewise with all the other candidates among the other parties.

CongressCritters are supposed to represent the people, all the people in their state or district, but they have the luxury of lying through their teeth to get elected, then they push their own or their party's agenda. Make them answerable to the people instead of their party by confronting them at the lowest level. Whack down the trunk of the tree and you don't have to worry about bringing down the limbs and leaves....

Desertdog · September 2, 2002, 04:30 PM

Blackhawk, I agree with you on the on single issue Pacs.
________________________________________
Agree, and that's one reason why I favor single issue PACs. Political parties have destroyed individual accountability of candidates to the electorate.
________________________________________

That is what the pro-gunners need. Is there a progunners single issue PAC around? I do believe if we can donate enough for progun issues, we could probably get such as Feinstein and Schumer to see the light.

Blackhawk · September 2, 2002, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Is there a progunners single issue PAC around?

Not that I know of.

I've been thinking of starting one, but this thing called "my life" keeps getting in the way....

September 1, 2002, 06:08 PM	#1
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	interesting NYT piece on phoney suits against gun makers Gun Industry Is Gaining Immunity Against Suits By FOX BUTTERFIELD spate of government litigation against the nation's gun companies has been stifled in 30 states, which have passed laws granting the industry immunity from civil lawsuits. Those laws have all been enacted since 1998, when New Orleans became the first of almost three dozen cities and counties to file suits against gun manufacturers and dealers, accusing them of being public nuisances and seeking huge damage awards in a campaign similar to that waged against the tobacco industry. The gun companies have won the aid of state legislatures to turn back the legal assault. Already, civil suits against the industry by New Orleans and Atlanta have been dismissed by state courts in Louisiana and Georgia because of the grants of immunity, even though the grants were passed after the suits were filed. Suits by Detroit and Wayne County, Mich., are pending while a Michigan court determines whether a new law there granting immunity can be applied retroactively. A striking exception to the trend is the California State Legislature, which passed a bill this week repealing a law that gave the gun industry immunity. Gun control advocates hailed the repeal as a major defeat for the industry, but their victory may be short-lived. In Washington, there is a bill with 228 sponsors in the House of Representatives, that would provide federal immunity to the firearms industry. A similar bill in the Senate has 39 sponsors. No other industry has such blanket protection. Some of the other lawsuits have survived motions to dismiss by the gun industry and have quietly moved into the discovery phase. Lawyers for the cities, who have subpoenaed large numbers of internal firearms company documents and testimony by industry officials, say they have now found significant evidence of their central claim — that the gun industry maintains a distribution system that allows a large number of guns to fall into the hands of criminals and juveniles. Specifically, the lawyers say, they have found evidence that the gun manufacturers failed to act on warnings by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that certain distributors were responsible for selling large numbers of guns that ended up with criminals. "We haven't found one of the companies that uses this information from the government to check its distributors, or put them on notice or cut them off," said David Kairys, a professor at Temple University Law School who is advising many of the cities. But Lawrence G. Keane, the general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the gun industry, denied that the cities had found any damaging evidence. "If there was evidence that manufacturers were willingly selling to criminals and juveniles, the A.T.F. would close them down," Mr. Keane said. Mr. Kairys and some other lawyers for the cities say they do not expect to win large monetary settlements. Instead, they say, the cities are hoping to force the gun manufacturers to change their distribution system to make it harder for criminals to buy guns. Mr. Keane said he was confident the municipal lawsuits would all be dismissed or decided in favor of the gun companies. Several other cities' lawsuits, Mr. Keane pointed out, have already been dismissed by the courts because the judges did not accept the evidence or a new legal theory that the cities are trying to use: that the gun industry amounts to a public nuisance, like an industrial polluter, because it supplies guns to criminals. In another suit, brought by Boston, a Massachusetts judge allowed the case to proceed but lawyers for the city dropped the case after discovery was completed. One lawyer close to the case said that a law firm doing some of the work for the city dropped out when it realized there would be little money to collect. Mr. Keane said the lawyers for Boston gave up "because they realized these cases are dogs. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow." Mr. Keane said he was confident the same result would occur in California, where 12 cities and counties have a consolidated lawsuit against the gun industry. "The same documents were produced in Boston and California, many of the witnesses were the same, and many of the lawyers are the same," Mr. Keane said. But Dennis Henigan, the legal director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a co-counsel in the California suits, said the situations in the Boston and California cases were very different. "We think the California cities will be able to put on a powerful case against the industry," Mr. Henigan said. Mr. Henigan said the vote by the California Legislature this week to repeal the immunity was in response to an unpopular decision last year by the California Supreme Court ruling that victims of a rampage shooting at a law office in San Francisco in 1993 could not sue the manufacturer of the murder weapon because of the immunity law. The new bill repealing the gun industry's immunity now goes to Gov. Gray Davis. Russ Lopez, a spokesman for Governor Davis, said the governor had not yet decided whether to sign the bill, though when the immunity law originally passed Mr. Davis voted against it as a member of the Assembly. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the gun industry deserved special protection because "it is irresponsible to hold a legitimate industry responsible for the criminal actions of a few people over which it has no control." "We would not sue car manufacturers for injuries caused by a drunk driver," Mr. Arulanandam said.

September 1, 2002, 07:14 PM	#3
Standing Wolf Member in memoriam Join Date: April 26, 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,649	If I were a member of the firearms industry, I'd seriously advocate going after these cities and counties and states in court after the frivolous--but exceedingly expensive--law suits have been dismissed. I believe the cities, counties, and states could be prosecuted, in fact, under R.I.C.O. laws, especially since many of those involved have publicly admitted their only realistic hope is to bankrupt firearms manufacturers and distributors. __________________ No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

September 2, 2002, 04:30 PM	#11
Desertdog Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2002 Location: Mojave Desert, CA Posts: 261	We need a single issue PAC Blackhawk, I agree with you on the on single issue Pacs. ________________________________________ Agree, and that's one reason why I favor single issue PACs. Political parties have destroyed individual accountability of candidates to the electorate. ________________________________________ That is what the pro-gunners need. Is there a progunners single issue PAC around? I do believe if we can donate enough for progun issues, we could probably get such as Feinstein and Schumer to see the light.

September 1, 2002, 09:49 PM	#4
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Blackhawk: You wrote in part: "However, I hope their substance somehow sneaks its way into the campaign rhetoric. Maybe it would smoke some of the latent gun grabbers out...." It mighr except to what end, given the shortness of memory displayed by the electorate, a not so small number of whom are GUN OWNERS.

September 1, 2002, 10:01 PM	#5
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Standing Wolf: You wrote: If I were a member of the firearms industry, I'd seriously advocate going after these cities and counties and states in court after the frivolous--but exceedingly expensive--law suits have been dismissed. I believe the cities, counties, and states could be prosecuted, in fact, under R.I.C.O. laws, especially since many of those involved have publicly admitted their only realistic hope is to bankrupt firearms manufacturers and distributors. __________________ Your point is certainly an interesting one, which has been raised previously by several people. Unfortunately, I suspect that the entities and individuals who brought these suits might well turn out to be "imune" from the sort of action you and others have suggested. Another aspect of this issue might be the following. Don't you think that the courts would cover for the political whores? Also, when was the last time you saw one lawyer sue another? Still another aspect of the matter might be the following. Does the firearms industry have the balls to bring such action? I would dearly love to see such as you speak of actually take place, with any number of the people who started this foolishness sitting in jail, their lawyers having been disbarred. I simply do not think that that is something that's going to happen, sad to note. By the way, there are 50 states, and legislation blocking these frivilous suits have been enacted in just 30 or so or them. I also, don't think that we will see a federal law that accomplishes the desired ending, not unless there are a lot of "new" faces in The Congress.

September 2, 2002, 01:00 PM	#8
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Blackhawk: "The most effective lying politicans do is by never saying anything at all. Because of an appealing personality and giving lip service to pablum issues, voters "like" them. When 2/3 of poll respondents favor individual rights interpretation of the 2A, it's going to be harder for grabbers to hide, especially if they can't ignore the issue. " Sounds good to me, with the following caveats. Holding incumbents feet to the fire, ditto for "new faces", lest they wriggle and or squirm away takes constant effort and some work. Unfortunately, based on past performances, I'm given to wonder as to the following. Can the electorate, gun owners included, really be looked to, to make the "sacrifices" in time to provide the necessary effort? Maybe, maybe not. I lean, based on past performances, toward the latter conclusion, though I certainly could be wrong, and here I'd really like to be so proven. Work and effort are certainly necessary, for media isn't on our side, they aren't even neutral, so even if polls show what you say, media will, to the greatest extent possible, ignore the facts of the matter, including such expressions of public opinion as do not fit "their druthers". Re the apathy of people one would expect to be more engaged, consider the following. Next time you get together with friends, co-religionists, associates of one kind or another, and they all get to bitching about one thing or another, ask the following rhetorical question, then view the response or lack thereof. Ladies and gentlemen, or just gentlemen, or simply Hey guys, regarding whatever it is that has you all wound up, when was the last time you contacted a relevant elected or appointed offical concerning the cause of you angst? I have a fairly strong stomach, however in virtually all cases where I've asked this question, the results obtained, while not surprising, have been never-the-less slightly sickening, to say the least. Obviously, efforts must continue, though one does sometimes wonder as to whether it is worth bothering with, for time spent fighting this battle could certainly be spent more enjoyably, as with the sipping of good scotch.

September 2, 2002, 01:20 PM	#10
Blackhawk Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2001 Posts: 5,040	Agree, and that's one reason why I favor single issue PACs. Political parties have destroyed individual accountability of candidates to the electorate. Everybody prioritizes issues. There are some that if a candidate is on the wrong side of, activists will crawl out of the woodwork to oppose. Since most congressional seats will be filled by Republicans or Democrats, the place to attack is in the primaries. If a CD is essentially assured of going to a Democrat, then triage the candidates during the primary. "So and so says you must depend on calling 911 to protect yourself and your family if attacked by violent criminals because you cannot be trusted with a gun even though that right is protected by the Constitution." Get a democrat who unequivocally supports the BOR in the general election if one's going to win anyway. Likewise with all the other candidates among the other parties. CongressCritters are supposed to represent the people, all the people in their state or district, but they have the luxury of lying through their teeth to get elected, then they push their own or their party's agenda. Make them answerable to the people instead of their party by confronting them at the lowest level. Whack down the trunk of the tree and you don't have to worry about bringing down the limbs and leaves....