In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Cincinnati Gun Lawsuit Questioned
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Cincinnati Gun Lawsuit Questioned
Thu Jun 13,12:20 PM ET
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A lawyer for one of the nation's leading gunmakers says Cincinnati will have a hard time winning if it presses its newly revived lawsuit against the industry.
Cincinnati's mayor also questioned whether the city should continue throwing money into the attempt to recoup millions of dollars it has lost over the years to gun violence. He suggested the City Council discuss it.
"There ought to be a breadth of experience out there that can help us figure out whether this is going to be a productive exercise," Mayor Charlie Luken said.
On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to allow Cincinnati's case against several gunmakers to proceed, overturning an appeals court's previous dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court's decision has important ramifications for at least 27 similar cases because it is the first in which a state Supreme Court upheld a lawsuit on the merits of the case, said Jonathan Lowy, senior attorney for the Washington-based Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence.
Connecticut's Supreme Court rejected a similar lawsuit by the city of Bridgeport in October, saying the city had not suffered sufficient direct losses from gun violence to make it able to pursue its case.
The Louisiana Supreme Court last year dismissed another lawsuit, brought by New Orleans, on the basis that a new state law prevented such an action; and the Florida Supreme Court ( news - web sites) last year declined to review a lower court's dismissal of a similar lawsuit brought by Miami-Dade County.
The cities and counties suing gunmakers say millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on police and emergency workers responding to gun-related crime and on hospitalization, investigation and prosecution.
Lawyers for gunmakers argue there is no legal basis for such lawsuits. They said a ruling in Cincinnati's favor would make other manufacturers of legal products equally liable.
"Every appellate court so far which has addressed the issue - with the exception of the Ohio Supreme Court - has held that manufacturers would not be liable for the lawful manufacture and sale of non-defective products," said Lawrence Greenwald, a Baltimore lawyer representing Accokeek, Md.-based Beretta.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Francis Sweeney said Wednesday's decision to send the Cincinnati case back to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court did not imply the city would succeeded. It merely meant the city had enough facts to pursue its claims, Sweeney said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020613/ap_on_re_us/cincinnati_gun_lawsuit_6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Thu Jun 13,12:20 PM ET
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A lawyer for one of the nation's leading gunmakers says Cincinnati will have a hard time winning if it presses its newly revived lawsuit against the industry.
Cincinnati's mayor also questioned whether the city should continue throwing money into the attempt to recoup millions of dollars it has lost over the years to gun violence. He suggested the City Council discuss it.
"There ought to be a breadth of experience out there that can help us figure out whether this is going to be a productive exercise," Mayor Charlie Luken said.
On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to allow Cincinnati's case against several gunmakers to proceed, overturning an appeals court's previous dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court's decision has important ramifications for at least 27 similar cases because it is the first in which a state Supreme Court upheld a lawsuit on the merits of the case, said Jonathan Lowy, senior attorney for the Washington-based Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence.
Connecticut's Supreme Court rejected a similar lawsuit by the city of Bridgeport in October, saying the city had not suffered sufficient direct losses from gun violence to make it able to pursue its case.
The Louisiana Supreme Court last year dismissed another lawsuit, brought by New Orleans, on the basis that a new state law prevented such an action; and the Florida Supreme Court ( news - web sites) last year declined to review a lower court's dismissal of a similar lawsuit brought by Miami-Dade County.
The cities and counties suing gunmakers say millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on police and emergency workers responding to gun-related crime and on hospitalization, investigation and prosecution.
Lawyers for gunmakers argue there is no legal basis for such lawsuits. They said a ruling in Cincinnati's favor would make other manufacturers of legal products equally liable.
"Every appellate court so far which has addressed the issue - with the exception of the Ohio Supreme Court - has held that manufacturers would not be liable for the lawful manufacture and sale of non-defective products," said Lawrence Greenwald, a Baltimore lawyer representing Accokeek, Md.-based Beretta.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Francis Sweeney said Wednesday's decision to send the Cincinnati case back to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court did not imply the city would succeeded. It merely meant the city had enough facts to pursue its claims, Sweeney said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020613/ap_on_re_us/cincinnati_gun_lawsuit_6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
California State Constitutional Amendment 12, a measure that would levy a five cent tax on every bullet sold in the state, passed out of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday. The proposed amendment, introduced by Senator Don Perata (D-09), received the minimum seven committee votes required for passage. Now, the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee may see the amendment as early as next Wednesday, June 12. Also on the docket are Senate Bill 682 (Perata) and Assembly Bill 496 (Paul Koretz, D-42), bills that would effectively strip firearms manufacturers of current protection in state law granting them limited statutory immunity from being sued. This limited immunity has been on the books since 1983 and was passed originally to halt greedy trial lawyers who want nothing more than to pad their bank accounts while putting this nation's lawful firearm manufacturers out of business. California gun owners must work hard to assure that these harmful legislative proposals are defeated!
http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=410
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Attention all gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in the Pittsburgh area! The Pittsburgh City Council recently approved preliminary zoning changes that would prohibit gun sales in certain parts of the city. The Council will conduct a final vote on this dangerous proposal Tuesday, June 18. If you live in the Pittsburgh area, contact your city council member immediately and ask him to vote "NO" on these zoning changes! You may reach your council member by calling the Pittsburgh City Clerk's Office at 412-255-2138. Read more about the ordinance here.
http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=415
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The gun control lobby that calls itself "Americans for Gun Safety" (AGS) is poised to move forward with its campaign of exploiting the terrorist attacks of September 11 in order to further its anti-Second Amendment agenda. AGS has shamelessly attempted to deceive the American public into believing that terrorists-who are aided by renegade countries that support their murderous agenda with military arms and training, as well as millions of dollars-are shopping at your local gun shows right alongside law-abiding hunters, collectors, and those interested in personal protection. U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.)-the foremost spokesman for AGS in the U.S. Senate-has teamed up with anti-gun U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and we expect them to try to force a vote in the Senate on their anti-gun show bill, S. 890, some time between now and Independence Day. S. 890 is designed to run gun shows out of business through a variety of registration and licensing schemes and is clearly the first step towards the true goal of banning all legal private sales, including those between friends and family.
It is critical that you contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to oppose S. 890 when it is brought up for consideration. You can reach your U.S. Senators by calling the U.S. Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Just ask for your Senators' offices, or give the operator your state. For additional contact information, use our "Write Your Reps" tool.
http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=407
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The Ohio Supreme Court continued its 4-3 voyage on the seas of judicial activism Wednesday with a ruling that allows the city of Cincinnati to proceed with its lawsuit against the gun industry.
Even though we support stringent handgun regulation, we do not endorse the lawmaking-by-litigation tactic embraced by City Council and about 30 other municipalities across the country. Maybe it's well-intended, but the victim here is likely to be, not the bad guys, but the concept of personal responsibility.
The city's lawsuit, filed in 1999 against 15 gun manufacturers, three trade associations and one handgun distributor, is a civil action alleging negligence, product liability and public nuisance. The city alleges that gun manufacturers have made, marketed and distributed firearms in ways that make weapons available to criminals and children, among others. It says that by not equipping guns with an unproven technology (trigger mechanisms that will only fire when activated by the registered owner), gun makers have fostered the criminal misuse of firearms. Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman dismissed the suit in 1999. He held, sensibly, that gun manufacturers couldn't be held liable for the misuse by individuals of a product that had been legally made and sold. A year later a state appeals court came to the same conclusion.
But Justice Francis E. Sweeney, writing for the same Supreme Court majority that has overturned the state's school funding system and stymied the Legislature's every attempt at tort reform, held that the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. This bloc {ndash} Sweeney was joined by Justices Judith Resnick, Paul Pfeifer and Andy Douglas {ndash} said Wednesday it "would be remiss if we did not recognize the importance of allowing this type of litigation to go past the pleading stages.'' Tellingly, the majority opinion approvingly quotes a commentary which praises such gun litigation, not on its legal merits, but on its role in promoting the desired outcome of forcing the design of "safer'' firearms and "new marketing practices'' that make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms.
We would prefer the Ohio Supreme Court to leave such decisions to the General Assembly or local legislative bodies. Those are forums better suited for establishing, and vetting, public policy.
In and of itself, of course, Wednesday's decision has little immediate impact. It merely lets a lawsuit continue; there's no way to tell how it will turn out.
But this decision is a red flag; it's one more reason for voters to pay attention to the Ohio Supreme Court races in November.
Two of the court's seven seats are at stake this year. Justice Evelyn Stratton, a consistent member of the moderate bloc on the court, is seeking re-election against Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Janet Burnside. The other seat is now held by Douglas, who must step down because of age limitations. The Republican Party has endorsed Maureen O'Conner, currently the lieutnenat governor, for the open seat; the Democrats are backing a Hamilton County Muncipal Court judge, Tim Black.
This will be, in short, an election that could tip the ideological balance on the court. Wednesday's decision shows why voters should do just that. http://www.cincypost.com/2002/jun/13/edita061302.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Urge Cooperation, Remain Committed To Safety, Responsibility
To: National Desk
Contact: Gary G. Mehalik of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, 203-426-1320
NEWTOWN, Conn., June 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Ohio Supreme
Court overturned today, by a one vote margin (4-3), two lower court
decisions that had dismissed the city of Cincinnati's suit against
the firearms industry seeking to hold manufacturers of legal,
highly regulated products responsible for the criminal misuse of
their products. The court's decision may also revive the moribund
federal court case filed by Cleveland.
Today's decision is contrary to the unanimous opinions of the
highest courts in New York, Connecticut and Florida, as well as of
the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that firearm
manufacturers cannot be held liable under the circumstances alleged
by Cincinnati. Twenty-three of the most respected, highest ranked
judges in the country ruled in this manner before the four judge
majority of the Ohio Supreme Court saw fit to rule in a contrary
way.
This decision merely provides the city with an opportunity,
through discovery, to try to prove its outrageous accusations,
according to National Shooting Sports Foundation. The court did not
rule on the validity or merit of those allegations. Manufacturers
may ask the trial courts to dismiss both suits, based on an Ohio
law enacted last year which prohibits municipal suits against
firearms manufacturers.
"Today's decision, while obviously disappointing, puts
Cincinnati in the same position Boston was three years ago," said
Lawrence G. Keane, vice president and general counsel for the
National Shooting Sports Foundation." In the end, Cincinnati will
conclude, as Boston before it, that this industry has a
long-standing and genuine commitment to further reducing accidents
and to working cooperatively with law enforcement in its efforts to
combat the criminal and accidental misuse of firearms."
"We would prefer to work cooperatively with the city," Keane
continued, "as we are doing with Boston, because we believe
cooperation, not confrontation is the best path forward. But this
industry is resolute in its commitment to defend itself against
these politically motivated suits."
Today's decision Keane notes, also demonstrates the urgent need
for Congress to enact federal legislation to bar these suits.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, founded in 1961,
represents approximately 2,200 members involved in the sales and
marketing of firearms and related products. NSSF produces videos
and publishes numerous brochures and booklets for educators,
parents, firearms owners, sportsmen and hunters. Safety education
focuses on safe handling and storage, with special emphasis on
properly storing an unloaded firearm to be inaccessible to children
or other unauthorized persons. For more information about safe and
responsible firearms ownership, visit the NSSF's Web site at
http://www.nssf.org or Project HomeSafe's site at
http://www.projecthomesafe.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
06/12 17:48
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0612-153.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878