ragingbull454
New member
Daley loses 6-year fight to make gunmakers pay
Advertisement
By Todd Lighty and Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporters
November 19, 2004
The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed two novel lawsuits Thursday that had sought to hold the firearms industry responsible for the costs of gun violence in Chicago, ending a six-year legal battle that thrust Mayor Richard Daley into the national political debate over gun control.
The state's highest court rejected arguments by Daley and the families of murder victims that the firearms industry creates a "public nuisance" by saturating the city and its suburbs with cheap guns that quickly find their way into the hands of gang members. City attorneys said they would not appeal.
In its unanimous decision, the court ruled that regulation of the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms should be left to the state legislature.
"Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts," according to the justices.
In a strongly worded opinion concurring with the decision, several justices acknowledged that they were disturbed by evidence presented in the two cases that suggests the firearms industry "sought to increase their profits by pandering" to criminals.
Nevertheless, the justices ruled that the industry was not causing a public nuisance under the law and cannot be held responsible for the actions of criminals.
The firearms industry continues to find success around the country in courtrooms, arguing that gun manufacturers and dealers cannot be responsible for the violent conduct of criminals.
Of the 23 lawsuits filed since 1998 by states, municipalities and the NAACP against the gun industry, 20 have been dismissed, although two are on appeal, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Three other suits are proceeding in courts, including one in Gary that is in the early stages of pretrial discovery.
James Dorr, a Chicago lawyer for gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co., said that courts were recognizing that gun control was within the strict purview of legislatures.
"No one wants to see guns in the hands of criminals," Dorr said. "But the legislature is the appropriate place to balance lawful gun ownership on the one hand with the unlawful use of guns by criminals on the other."
The court recognized the impact of gun violence in certain neighborhoods. Five of the justices joining in the separate concurring opinion said they hoped lawmakers would turn their attention to the issue of gun violence.
"It is, of course, impossible for a manufacturer, distributor, or ... dealer to know that a particular gun will be used in a crime," wrote Justice Charles Freeman. "But plaintiff's allegations, if true, support the conclusion that the defendant gun manufacturers are not only aware of the probability that their wares might be used in the commission of crimes, but that they actively seek to exploit that fact to increase their profit margin."
Freeman took note of the allegations that gun manufacturers design and market their products to appeal to crooks, touting their guns as easy to conceal, resistant to fingerprints and capable of firing many rounds from a single clip.
Stephen Young, whose 19-year-old son Andrew was shot and killed in 1996 with a gun illegally bought in the suburbs, said he was devastated that the court dismissed his and the other families' lawsuit. He said the justices were out of touch with the violence that has hit so many homes.
"It's a sad day for everyone but the gun dealers," Young said. "The Illinois Supreme Court must take responsibility for the next gun that is sold under questionable circumstances and that is used to kill someone."
Lawyers on both sides of the case said the Daley administration and victims' families appear to be out of legal options.
Since the two lawsuits did not involve a federal constitutional issue, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was unlikely. The other option was to ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider its unanimous decision.
Although the city said it would not appeal, Locke Bowman, a lawyer for the relatives of Andrew Young and murdered Chicago Police Officer Michael Ceriale, said he was exploring legal options.
"This obviously is a great disappointment to the families of Michael Ceriale and Andrew Young, who were innocent victims of gun violence contributed to by the distribution and manufacture of handguns," Bowman said.
Daley said Thursday that society seems more concerned about the safety of cars and of pharmaceuticals than about the dangers of guns.
"Guns are killing more people," Daley said. "I will go to the Rehabilitation [Institute] and show you kids who have been shot, with spinal injuries. The rest of their lives they are sitting there. Some way, America must come to grips with this."
Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said that the city's financial outlay in pursuing the suit was confined mostly to fees paid to experts. City attorneys and law firms did the legal work for free, she said.
Georges said the city will continue to "lobby the General Assembly for common-sense gun laws."
Examples of what such laws could do include limiting purchases to one weapon a month, banning assault weapons and imposing a state-licensing requirement on gun dealers.
But repeated attempts by the city to push such measures have failed in Springfield.
Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the Illinois Senate Judiciary chairman, said he would review the decision to see what legislation could address the high court's comments about the public nuisance statute.
Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago), who has sponsored Daley's assault-weapon ban bill, said the court's ruling means "gun manufacturers are still going to be selling their Saturday night specials, and, as a result, they're going to be on the streets."
Joe Waldron, executive director of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Bellevue, Wash., said the gun industry's products are among the most heavily regulated. He said numerous laws are already on the books to deal with criminals.
"Their idea is to try to bankrupt the gun industry by tying them up in court over ludicrous lawsuits," Waldron said.
At a well-choreographed event in November 1998, complete with video clips, Daley jumped into the national debate on gun control and announced that the city and Cook County were filing a $433 million lawsuit against the firearms industry.
Daley said the industry was a willing participant with gang members, drug dealers and other criminals and had created a public nuisance in Chicago and its suburbs.
The unusual strategy sought to equate the firearms industry with factories that pollute and bars that serve alcohol to minors.
The city wanted to recover the cost of emergency medical services, law enforcement efforts and the prosecution of violations of gun control ordinances. The county sought compensation for the treatment of gunshot victims and the prosecution of suspects who use guns in crimes.
That same year, relatives of gunshot victims in Chicago also sued the firearms industry, and pressed the claim of public nuisance.
Over the next six years, the victims of gun violence and the firearms industry waged a seesaw battle in the courts.
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled in 2002 that handgun manufacturers and distributors could be held liable for creating a nuisance that unreasonably threatens public safety. The firearms industry then turned to the state's highest court.
Justice Rita Garman, writing the court's opinion in both cases, said the defendants--gun manufacturers, distributors and suburban Chicago gun shops--had not created a public nuisance.
"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance. ... It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance, not the activities at the defendants' various places of business," Garman wrote regarding the Daley Administration's lawsuit.
Garman said the court's intent was not to downplay the persistence of violent gun crime, or the difficult challenges police and public officials face in tackling the problem.
Nor, she wrote, was the court being dismissive of the daily worries of residents who live in high-crime areas where guns are frequently used.
"Rather, we are reluctant to state that there is a public right to be free from the threat that some individuals may use an otherwise legal product [be it a gun, liquor, a car, a cell phone...] in a manner that may create a risk of harm to another," Garman wrote.
Advertisement
By Todd Lighty and Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporters
November 19, 2004
The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed two novel lawsuits Thursday that had sought to hold the firearms industry responsible for the costs of gun violence in Chicago, ending a six-year legal battle that thrust Mayor Richard Daley into the national political debate over gun control.
The state's highest court rejected arguments by Daley and the families of murder victims that the firearms industry creates a "public nuisance" by saturating the city and its suburbs with cheap guns that quickly find their way into the hands of gang members. City attorneys said they would not appeal.
In its unanimous decision, the court ruled that regulation of the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms should be left to the state legislature.
"Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts," according to the justices.
In a strongly worded opinion concurring with the decision, several justices acknowledged that they were disturbed by evidence presented in the two cases that suggests the firearms industry "sought to increase their profits by pandering" to criminals.
Nevertheless, the justices ruled that the industry was not causing a public nuisance under the law and cannot be held responsible for the actions of criminals.
The firearms industry continues to find success around the country in courtrooms, arguing that gun manufacturers and dealers cannot be responsible for the violent conduct of criminals.
Of the 23 lawsuits filed since 1998 by states, municipalities and the NAACP against the gun industry, 20 have been dismissed, although two are on appeal, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Three other suits are proceeding in courts, including one in Gary that is in the early stages of pretrial discovery.
James Dorr, a Chicago lawyer for gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co., said that courts were recognizing that gun control was within the strict purview of legislatures.
"No one wants to see guns in the hands of criminals," Dorr said. "But the legislature is the appropriate place to balance lawful gun ownership on the one hand with the unlawful use of guns by criminals on the other."
The court recognized the impact of gun violence in certain neighborhoods. Five of the justices joining in the separate concurring opinion said they hoped lawmakers would turn their attention to the issue of gun violence.
"It is, of course, impossible for a manufacturer, distributor, or ... dealer to know that a particular gun will be used in a crime," wrote Justice Charles Freeman. "But plaintiff's allegations, if true, support the conclusion that the defendant gun manufacturers are not only aware of the probability that their wares might be used in the commission of crimes, but that they actively seek to exploit that fact to increase their profit margin."
Freeman took note of the allegations that gun manufacturers design and market their products to appeal to crooks, touting their guns as easy to conceal, resistant to fingerprints and capable of firing many rounds from a single clip.
Stephen Young, whose 19-year-old son Andrew was shot and killed in 1996 with a gun illegally bought in the suburbs, said he was devastated that the court dismissed his and the other families' lawsuit. He said the justices were out of touch with the violence that has hit so many homes.
"It's a sad day for everyone but the gun dealers," Young said. "The Illinois Supreme Court must take responsibility for the next gun that is sold under questionable circumstances and that is used to kill someone."
Lawyers on both sides of the case said the Daley administration and victims' families appear to be out of legal options.
Since the two lawsuits did not involve a federal constitutional issue, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was unlikely. The other option was to ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider its unanimous decision.
Although the city said it would not appeal, Locke Bowman, a lawyer for the relatives of Andrew Young and murdered Chicago Police Officer Michael Ceriale, said he was exploring legal options.
"This obviously is a great disappointment to the families of Michael Ceriale and Andrew Young, who were innocent victims of gun violence contributed to by the distribution and manufacture of handguns," Bowman said.
Daley said Thursday that society seems more concerned about the safety of cars and of pharmaceuticals than about the dangers of guns.
"Guns are killing more people," Daley said. "I will go to the Rehabilitation [Institute] and show you kids who have been shot, with spinal injuries. The rest of their lives they are sitting there. Some way, America must come to grips with this."
Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said that the city's financial outlay in pursuing the suit was confined mostly to fees paid to experts. City attorneys and law firms did the legal work for free, she said.
Georges said the city will continue to "lobby the General Assembly for common-sense gun laws."
Examples of what such laws could do include limiting purchases to one weapon a month, banning assault weapons and imposing a state-licensing requirement on gun dealers.
But repeated attempts by the city to push such measures have failed in Springfield.
Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the Illinois Senate Judiciary chairman, said he would review the decision to see what legislation could address the high court's comments about the public nuisance statute.
Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago), who has sponsored Daley's assault-weapon ban bill, said the court's ruling means "gun manufacturers are still going to be selling their Saturday night specials, and, as a result, they're going to be on the streets."
Joe Waldron, executive director of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Bellevue, Wash., said the gun industry's products are among the most heavily regulated. He said numerous laws are already on the books to deal with criminals.
"Their idea is to try to bankrupt the gun industry by tying them up in court over ludicrous lawsuits," Waldron said.
At a well-choreographed event in November 1998, complete with video clips, Daley jumped into the national debate on gun control and announced that the city and Cook County were filing a $433 million lawsuit against the firearms industry.
Daley said the industry was a willing participant with gang members, drug dealers and other criminals and had created a public nuisance in Chicago and its suburbs.
The unusual strategy sought to equate the firearms industry with factories that pollute and bars that serve alcohol to minors.
The city wanted to recover the cost of emergency medical services, law enforcement efforts and the prosecution of violations of gun control ordinances. The county sought compensation for the treatment of gunshot victims and the prosecution of suspects who use guns in crimes.
That same year, relatives of gunshot victims in Chicago also sued the firearms industry, and pressed the claim of public nuisance.
Over the next six years, the victims of gun violence and the firearms industry waged a seesaw battle in the courts.
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled in 2002 that handgun manufacturers and distributors could be held liable for creating a nuisance that unreasonably threatens public safety. The firearms industry then turned to the state's highest court.
Justice Rita Garman, writing the court's opinion in both cases, said the defendants--gun manufacturers, distributors and suburban Chicago gun shops--had not created a public nuisance.
"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance. ... It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance, not the activities at the defendants' various places of business," Garman wrote regarding the Daley Administration's lawsuit.
Garman said the court's intent was not to downplay the persistence of violent gun crime, or the difficult challenges police and public officials face in tackling the problem.
Nor, she wrote, was the court being dismissive of the daily worries of residents who live in high-crime areas where guns are frequently used.
"Rather, we are reluctant to state that there is a public right to be free from the threat that some individuals may use an otherwise legal product [be it a gun, liquor, a car, a cell phone...] in a manner that may create a risk of harm to another," Garman wrote.
Last edited:
