LOCAL NEWS SATURDAY • April 15, 2000
Ruling puts city's gun suit on hold
Gun makers' victory: Judge says state high court must first decide constitutionality issues.
Jack Warner - Staff
Saturday, April 15, 2000
In the handgun makers' first real victory against a lawsuit filed by the city of Atlanta, a judge has issued an injunction barring any further action in the suit until the state Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.
"We are absolutely elated," said Frank Segal, attorney for the Belgian gun maker Browning and the Austrian firm Glock, which assembles its U.S. guns in Smyrna.
Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore, chief judge of Fulton Superior Court, handed down the brief order dated April 12, saying that "it is important to preserve the status quo" until the Supreme Court can rule on questions of state constitutionality that the gun makers claim are at the core of the issue. "All parties are enjoined from taking any action to proceed with the case" until that is done, she ordered.
Segal had filed for the injunction after Moore denied, in February, motions to bring the case out of state court and dismiss it due to the constitutional issues.
The suit the city filed seeks to recover millions of dollars in damages for gun violence and force handgun makers to comply with various rules. Similar suits have been filed by other major cities, and gun makers claim it is a concerted attempt to drive them out of business.
Mayor Bill Campbell issued a statement saying "We are confident we will prevail, and this will be allowed to be litigated."
"This is how the system is supposed to work," said Segal. "This is an emotional issue, but before we go through four or five years of litigation we should get a Supreme Court ruling on these matters."
Although such appeals normally take nine months or more before a hearing is set, Segal said he expected this case might come before the high court within three months. Moore issued a separate order commanding the court clerk to prepare the record of the case and get it to the Supreme Court within five days.
"This stops onerous discovery maneuvers and the invasion of our clients' records" until the high court rules, he said. "It stops this litigation in its tracks."
While Segal represents only Glock and Browning in the case, the order covers all the defendants, including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Colt's, and others.
Segal contends there are two major issues for the high court to decide.
One is whether it violates the state law prohibiting cities from "regulating in any manner" any aspect of the selling or ownership of firearms. The legislation passed hurriedly in the 1999 session of the Legislature forbidding such suits is only a "clarification" of that law, he said.
The second is whether the suit is a direct violation of the provision in the state constitution reserving for the state the authority to regulate firearms.
"There's no question that it's an attempt to regulate firearms," Segal said of the suit. "It seeks to establish sanctions for the violation of standards that the city seeks to impose."
The U.S. Supreme Court, he said, "has said that a suit for damages may constitute an improper attempt at regulation. The most troublesome part of all this is not a matter of gun control but that the city would attempt to undertake this action when it's so plainly constitutionally impermissible."
Ruling puts city's gun suit on hold
Gun makers' victory: Judge says state high court must first decide constitutionality issues.
Jack Warner - Staff
Saturday, April 15, 2000
In the handgun makers' first real victory against a lawsuit filed by the city of Atlanta, a judge has issued an injunction barring any further action in the suit until the state Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.
"We are absolutely elated," said Frank Segal, attorney for the Belgian gun maker Browning and the Austrian firm Glock, which assembles its U.S. guns in Smyrna.
Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore, chief judge of Fulton Superior Court, handed down the brief order dated April 12, saying that "it is important to preserve the status quo" until the Supreme Court can rule on questions of state constitutionality that the gun makers claim are at the core of the issue. "All parties are enjoined from taking any action to proceed with the case" until that is done, she ordered.
Segal had filed for the injunction after Moore denied, in February, motions to bring the case out of state court and dismiss it due to the constitutional issues.
The suit the city filed seeks to recover millions of dollars in damages for gun violence and force handgun makers to comply with various rules. Similar suits have been filed by other major cities, and gun makers claim it is a concerted attempt to drive them out of business.
Mayor Bill Campbell issued a statement saying "We are confident we will prevail, and this will be allowed to be litigated."
"This is how the system is supposed to work," said Segal. "This is an emotional issue, but before we go through four or five years of litigation we should get a Supreme Court ruling on these matters."
Although such appeals normally take nine months or more before a hearing is set, Segal said he expected this case might come before the high court within three months. Moore issued a separate order commanding the court clerk to prepare the record of the case and get it to the Supreme Court within five days.
"This stops onerous discovery maneuvers and the invasion of our clients' records" until the high court rules, he said. "It stops this litigation in its tracks."
While Segal represents only Glock and Browning in the case, the order covers all the defendants, including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Colt's, and others.
Segal contends there are two major issues for the high court to decide.
One is whether it violates the state law prohibiting cities from "regulating in any manner" any aspect of the selling or ownership of firearms. The legislation passed hurriedly in the 1999 session of the Legislature forbidding such suits is only a "clarification" of that law, he said.
The second is whether the suit is a direct violation of the provision in the state constitution reserving for the state the authority to regulate firearms.
"There's no question that it's an attempt to regulate firearms," Segal said of the suit. "It seeks to establish sanctions for the violation of standards that the city seeks to impose."
The U.S. Supreme Court, he said, "has said that a suit for damages may constitute an improper attempt at regulation. The most troublesome part of all this is not a matter of gun control but that the city would attempt to undertake this action when it's so plainly constitutionally impermissible."