Lawsuit Losses Don't Deter Gun-Control Groups

Josey1

Lawsuit Losses Don't Deter Gun-Control Groups12/17/2001 Although many state legislatures have passed measures preventing local municipalities from suing gunmakers, gun-control groups refuse to concede defeat, the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported Dec. 12.Over the years, 32 lawsuits have been filed by local governments suing gun manufacturers for gun-related injuries and deaths.But most liability cases failed in court, and the pro-gun lobby is celebrating its successes. "These cases are deathly ill and on life-support," said Larry Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "The concept of the maker of legal products being held responsible by municipalities for criminal conduct by users has been utterly rejected by the courts."But anti-gun forces are not giving up. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director at the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, points out that none of lawsuits filed in the late 1990s had gotten far enough to be heard on their merits.To date, gun manufacturers have won dismissal of legal actions in New York, Connecticut, Florida, and Louisiana. Six other cities' suits have been dismissed and are on appeal. Gun lawsuits and appeals are pending in California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Michigan, and Missouri.Local governments have been using three basic approaches to sue gunmakers: product liability suits that claim firearms are defective or designed without proper safety mechanisms; public-nuisance claims that blame gunmakers for distributing guns to high-crime areas or for marketing them to youths; and negligence suits, which claim the gun industry should take responsibility for the actions of end-users."Products liability is the best vehicle, because it offers the best opportunity for explaining why liability is a logical progression in legal doctrine, why it makes sense from the point of view of products liability law, and common-law development generally, and why it's good public policy," said Carl T. Bogus, a Roger Williams University law professor in Bristol, R.I., and editor of the new book, "The Second Amendment in Law and in History."He added that in order to be successful, plaintiffs must "concede they're asking courts to do something they have not done before."Several gun cases that are pending are taking the public-nuisance approach, including California's. Brian Siebel, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said there are no plans to switch strategies."It is groundbreaking litigation, which is always difficult," Siebel said. "We are proceeding actively to trial in the cases where motions to dismiss have been denied. We are actively involved in discovery and very aggressively intend to prove the allegations made in those cases." http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,546977,00.html

Iconoclast

They gotta do something to justify the high salaries they draw. Convenient to overlook precedent when it runs against you and are crafting a press release, but much harder to convince even a liberal court to do so.Look to see a lot of support for the manufacturers on that ridiculous third theory of making them liable for mis-use of product. For starters, Boeing would be liable for 9-11 . . . . In the right venue, they might be able to do something w/ the public nuisance theory, if only to cost the good guys a lot of bucks fighting them.[This message has been edited by Iconoclast (edited 12-18-2001).]