<strong><font size=3>Attorneys Target Gun Industry</font></strong>
<strong><A href = "#Do"> What you can do!</A></strong>
As greedy attorney's lick their chops over the prospect of a new round of litigation against gun manufacturers it is becoming more and more apparent that the system that rewards attorneys and plaintiffs for finding ways to suck money out of corporate America is badly flawed. The recent successes in tobacco litigation have convinced a number of legal experts that what is required to realize success and thus profit in this type of litigation is simple perseverance. What is not often mentioned is that tobacco suits were ineffective for many years. What broke the logjam for litigants was the discovery of information that Tobacco companies had deliberately tried to manipulate the addictive properties of their product in order to increase sales. This information was in the form of hard documentary evidence, reports and memoranda from the companies themselves. While tort lawyers have bandied about many allegations about the motives of the gun industry, there's not a shred of hard evidence to support any of them. They seem to be proceeding on the assumption that this information must be there to find.
Gun dealers and manufacturers sell to those who want to buy guns and they comply with federal and state laws in checking out who the buyers are. This most fundamental of market practices is being portrayed as a sinister conspiracy to support criminals in their activities but would this fanciful theory stand up if it were applied to any other products that criminals may use? Should an automobile manufacturer be held liable for helping a criminal escape? Should a garment manufacturer be held liable for allowing the criminal to conceal a weapon? These examples illustrate the absurdity of this argument when applied non-selectively as all good law must be.
Any increased scrutiny of gun buyers needs to be addressed by legislation not litigation. The reason there has not been stricter legislation is because a large number of Americans do not want it. To attempt to alter this situation by creating revisionist legal theories about liability at the judicial level in order to make an end run around the democratic process is an example of unilateral judicial activism unaccountable to the wishes of the people of this nation. That is unacceptable in this democracy.
The judiciary has become a branch of government out of control, driven by an ideological zealotry that is at odds with the values of most Americans and by the pursuit of money. This coming June the American Bar Association will be sponsoring a seminar in Washington DC designed to bring together attorneys who are considering bringing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, dealers <strong>and owners</strong>. The fact that the American Bar Association would engage in organized advocacy aimed at promoting suits against a particular industry, suits for which, by their own admission, a legal basis does not yet exist reveals an unabashed prejudice and contempt for the principle of objectivity that is supposed to guide good jurisprudence. The whole affair seems uncomfortably similar to "practice building" seminars held by professional organizations to increase their member's profits.
The American public is not nearly so enthusiastic about these legal events as the breathless media coverage might suggest. They rightly have concerns about the power of a judicial system that seems to be bullying its way into areas that it has long been restrained from entering using arguments and logic that seem to be long on strident demands and blatant emotional appeal, short on veracity and nearly devoid of facts.
Temple University Professor David Kairys who formulated the "legal theory" that is the basis for Chicago's legal action against gun manufacturers offered the following opinion about gun sales:
"They make their product easily available for crime. Then the fear that that generates makes it easier for them to turn around to the rest of us and say, 'By the way, you need a handgun to protect yourself from these handguns that get used in crime.' The whole market is driven by crime. One can think of it as an epidemic spread by fear--and this epidemic is very profitable to the industry. Every time there is a mass murder or a serial killer or a crime spree on the local news, that's good for gun sales."
The irony of this statement coming from a legal scholar is startling. Most Americans feel that the impetus for hiring an attorney is driven by just the mechanism Kairys describes. Everyone is looking to sue; every attorney is looking for suits to bring, so you must hire an attorney in order to "protect yourself". This is a fear driven cycle that greatly benefits attorneys and no one else.
Those of us who have fought long and hard for our right to keep and bear arms need to turn our attention to Tort Reform. This needs to become an important agenda in the next election cycle. And taking a page from our antagonist's book we need to persevere. It may not happen in time to affect the cases that have been brought so far, but our political power is proven and if we put our minds to it we can bring those in the judiciary who are abusing their considerable powers in this society to heel.
=rod=
<a name="Do"> <strong><font size=3> What You Can Do:</strong></font>
Visit the <strong><A href="http://www.atra.org"> American Tort Reform Association </A></strong> site and let them know that you're a gun owner and interested in Tort Reform in response to the organized campaign against gun manufacturers. Also the <strong><A href="http://www.saf.org"> Second Amendment Foundation </A></strong> is filing a suit against the municipalities who are suing the gun industry. Visit their site to find out more and consider supporting them. </A>
<strong><A href = "#Do"> What you can do!</A></strong>
As greedy attorney's lick their chops over the prospect of a new round of litigation against gun manufacturers it is becoming more and more apparent that the system that rewards attorneys and plaintiffs for finding ways to suck money out of corporate America is badly flawed. The recent successes in tobacco litigation have convinced a number of legal experts that what is required to realize success and thus profit in this type of litigation is simple perseverance. What is not often mentioned is that tobacco suits were ineffective for many years. What broke the logjam for litigants was the discovery of information that Tobacco companies had deliberately tried to manipulate the addictive properties of their product in order to increase sales. This information was in the form of hard documentary evidence, reports and memoranda from the companies themselves. While tort lawyers have bandied about many allegations about the motives of the gun industry, there's not a shred of hard evidence to support any of them. They seem to be proceeding on the assumption that this information must be there to find.
Gun dealers and manufacturers sell to those who want to buy guns and they comply with federal and state laws in checking out who the buyers are. This most fundamental of market practices is being portrayed as a sinister conspiracy to support criminals in their activities but would this fanciful theory stand up if it were applied to any other products that criminals may use? Should an automobile manufacturer be held liable for helping a criminal escape? Should a garment manufacturer be held liable for allowing the criminal to conceal a weapon? These examples illustrate the absurdity of this argument when applied non-selectively as all good law must be.
Any increased scrutiny of gun buyers needs to be addressed by legislation not litigation. The reason there has not been stricter legislation is because a large number of Americans do not want it. To attempt to alter this situation by creating revisionist legal theories about liability at the judicial level in order to make an end run around the democratic process is an example of unilateral judicial activism unaccountable to the wishes of the people of this nation. That is unacceptable in this democracy.
The judiciary has become a branch of government out of control, driven by an ideological zealotry that is at odds with the values of most Americans and by the pursuit of money. This coming June the American Bar Association will be sponsoring a seminar in Washington DC designed to bring together attorneys who are considering bringing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, dealers <strong>and owners</strong>. The fact that the American Bar Association would engage in organized advocacy aimed at promoting suits against a particular industry, suits for which, by their own admission, a legal basis does not yet exist reveals an unabashed prejudice and contempt for the principle of objectivity that is supposed to guide good jurisprudence. The whole affair seems uncomfortably similar to "practice building" seminars held by professional organizations to increase their member's profits.
The American public is not nearly so enthusiastic about these legal events as the breathless media coverage might suggest. They rightly have concerns about the power of a judicial system that seems to be bullying its way into areas that it has long been restrained from entering using arguments and logic that seem to be long on strident demands and blatant emotional appeal, short on veracity and nearly devoid of facts.
Temple University Professor David Kairys who formulated the "legal theory" that is the basis for Chicago's legal action against gun manufacturers offered the following opinion about gun sales:
"They make their product easily available for crime. Then the fear that that generates makes it easier for them to turn around to the rest of us and say, 'By the way, you need a handgun to protect yourself from these handguns that get used in crime.' The whole market is driven by crime. One can think of it as an epidemic spread by fear--and this epidemic is very profitable to the industry. Every time there is a mass murder or a serial killer or a crime spree on the local news, that's good for gun sales."
The irony of this statement coming from a legal scholar is startling. Most Americans feel that the impetus for hiring an attorney is driven by just the mechanism Kairys describes. Everyone is looking to sue; every attorney is looking for suits to bring, so you must hire an attorney in order to "protect yourself". This is a fear driven cycle that greatly benefits attorneys and no one else.
Those of us who have fought long and hard for our right to keep and bear arms need to turn our attention to Tort Reform. This needs to become an important agenda in the next election cycle. And taking a page from our antagonist's book we need to persevere. It may not happen in time to affect the cases that have been brought so far, but our political power is proven and if we put our minds to it we can bring those in the judiciary who are abusing their considerable powers in this society to heel.
=rod=
<a name="Do"> <strong><font size=3> What You Can Do:</strong></font>
Visit the <strong><A href="http://www.atra.org"> American Tort Reform Association </A></strong> site and let them know that you're a gun owner and interested in Tort Reform in response to the organized campaign against gun manufacturers. Also the <strong><A href="http://www.saf.org"> Second Amendment Foundation </A></strong> is filing a suit against the municipalities who are suing the gun industry. Visit their site to find out more and consider supporting them. </A>