http://www.foxnews.com/national/092200/guns_koeppel.sml
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Lawsuits Against Gun Industry Find Mixed Results
Friday, September 22, 2000 By David Koeppel
NEW YORK Judges across the country have split on whether to hear big-city lawsuits aiming to make gun manufacturers pay for the costs of gun violence.
A judge in Chicago recently threw out that city's case. The same happened in Cincinnati, Miami and Bridgeport, Conn. All the cities have appealed, or plan to.
But a California Superior Court judge refused to dismiss anti-gun lawsuits filed by 12 cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland. The courts have also allowed cases in Detroit, Atlanta, Boston, New Orleans and Cleveland to move forward.
Are these cities overreaching, clogging an already overcrowded judicial system with unnecessary lawsuits that try to blame legitimate merchants for the misdeeds of criminals? Or should the gun industry be held responsible for violence in much the same way the tobacco industry's been penalized for cancer and other smoking-related illnesses?
"Absolutely not, its ludicrous," said Little Rock, Ark., attorney Rod Martin, chairman of the Vanguard Organization, a non-profit political organization that promotes conservative ideas and causes. "Anglo-American law has always held that you have to perpetrate an act to be held responsible for it. These manufacturers have done nothing wrong. They can't be held responsible."
Martin said he's hopeful the cases that haven't already been thrown out will be denied on appeal. But he fears that successful lawsuits would contribute to "gutting the 2nd Amendment" by putting gun manufacturers out of business.
The California lawsuits against 28 gun companies assert that manufacturers sell weapons to dealers who knowingly provide guns to criminals. The suit charges the industry violates the state's public nuisance laws and also the California business practice laws.
San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne has charged that manufacturers mislead the public with deceptive advertising that promotes guns as a kind of "homeowners' fire insurance."
Renne argued that gunmakers are circumventing laws by making firearms with designs similar to those that have been legally banned. The lawsuit accuses the gun industry of distributing weapons to so-called "kitchen table" dealers who sell guns from the trunk of their cars or at flea markets without conducting suitable background checks.
"I think gunmakers should be held to the same standards as polluters," said Nathan Ballard, a deputy district attorney and spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney's office. "They are practically the only industry that can harm people and go largely unregulated. We hope the lawsuits bring gunmakers within reasonable safety standards."
In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley promised the city would appeal the circuit judge's decision to dismiss its $433 million lawsuit.
James Valentino, an attorney who represents one of the dealers, predicted the city would lose on appeal. Valentino's client, Universal Firearms LTD, operates Bell's Gun and Sports Shop in suburban Chicago and beat a criminal prosecution earlier this year.
Valentino described his client as a valued merchant in the community, where it's been doing business for nearly 50 years. He said that Bell's shooting range is frequently used by local police departments.
The lawyer scoffed at the city's charges that his client knowingly sold firearms to criminals and said that Bell has always adhered to the state's "highly regulated" gun laws, which require customers to be screened for firearm-owner identification cards before they can purchase weapons.
"If they can bring suit against the firearms business, no business is safe," Valentino said. "There's no indication that these weapons will be used illegally at the time of a sale. How is my client supposed to know that a crime could be committed by a third party two years after a gun is sold?"
Lawrence Rosenthal, deputy corporation counsel for the city of Chicago, admitted that the law in this area remains unsettled, but a clearer picture should emerge when the appellate courts begin to review the cases.
Rosenthal said that it's an "open secret" in the firearms industry that selling weapons to gunrunners for illegal use is a substantial "market niche" of many businesses.
"If you wanted to assemble yourself an arsenal fit for an army, you could do it in three weeks," Rosenthal said. "As long as the industry has an economic interest, this market will be exploited. The only way the industry will stop selling to gunrunners is if they risk financial liability."
[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Lawsuits Against Gun Industry Find Mixed Results
Friday, September 22, 2000 By David Koeppel
NEW YORK Judges across the country have split on whether to hear big-city lawsuits aiming to make gun manufacturers pay for the costs of gun violence.
A judge in Chicago recently threw out that city's case. The same happened in Cincinnati, Miami and Bridgeport, Conn. All the cities have appealed, or plan to.
But a California Superior Court judge refused to dismiss anti-gun lawsuits filed by 12 cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland. The courts have also allowed cases in Detroit, Atlanta, Boston, New Orleans and Cleveland to move forward.
Are these cities overreaching, clogging an already overcrowded judicial system with unnecessary lawsuits that try to blame legitimate merchants for the misdeeds of criminals? Or should the gun industry be held responsible for violence in much the same way the tobacco industry's been penalized for cancer and other smoking-related illnesses?
"Absolutely not, its ludicrous," said Little Rock, Ark., attorney Rod Martin, chairman of the Vanguard Organization, a non-profit political organization that promotes conservative ideas and causes. "Anglo-American law has always held that you have to perpetrate an act to be held responsible for it. These manufacturers have done nothing wrong. They can't be held responsible."
Martin said he's hopeful the cases that haven't already been thrown out will be denied on appeal. But he fears that successful lawsuits would contribute to "gutting the 2nd Amendment" by putting gun manufacturers out of business.
The California lawsuits against 28 gun companies assert that manufacturers sell weapons to dealers who knowingly provide guns to criminals. The suit charges the industry violates the state's public nuisance laws and also the California business practice laws.
San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne has charged that manufacturers mislead the public with deceptive advertising that promotes guns as a kind of "homeowners' fire insurance."
Renne argued that gunmakers are circumventing laws by making firearms with designs similar to those that have been legally banned. The lawsuit accuses the gun industry of distributing weapons to so-called "kitchen table" dealers who sell guns from the trunk of their cars or at flea markets without conducting suitable background checks.
"I think gunmakers should be held to the same standards as polluters," said Nathan Ballard, a deputy district attorney and spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney's office. "They are practically the only industry that can harm people and go largely unregulated. We hope the lawsuits bring gunmakers within reasonable safety standards."
In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley promised the city would appeal the circuit judge's decision to dismiss its $433 million lawsuit.
James Valentino, an attorney who represents one of the dealers, predicted the city would lose on appeal. Valentino's client, Universal Firearms LTD, operates Bell's Gun and Sports Shop in suburban Chicago and beat a criminal prosecution earlier this year.
Valentino described his client as a valued merchant in the community, where it's been doing business for nearly 50 years. He said that Bell's shooting range is frequently used by local police departments.
The lawyer scoffed at the city's charges that his client knowingly sold firearms to criminals and said that Bell has always adhered to the state's "highly regulated" gun laws, which require customers to be screened for firearm-owner identification cards before they can purchase weapons.
"If they can bring suit against the firearms business, no business is safe," Valentino said. "There's no indication that these weapons will be used illegally at the time of a sale. How is my client supposed to know that a crime could be committed by a third party two years after a gun is sold?"
Lawrence Rosenthal, deputy corporation counsel for the city of Chicago, admitted that the law in this area remains unsettled, but a clearer picture should emerge when the appellate courts begin to review the cases.
Rosenthal said that it's an "open secret" in the firearms industry that selling weapons to gunrunners for illegal use is a substantial "market niche" of many businesses.
"If you wanted to assemble yourself an arsenal fit for an army, you could do it in three weeks," Rosenthal said. "As long as the industry has an economic interest, this market will be exploited. The only way the industry will stop selling to gunrunners is if they risk financial liability."
[/quote]
