What is the biggest threat to gun owners right now? It is the lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers! This Pennsylvania bill will give us a way to block those suits in that state. Trigger locks or not, this is a good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill would ban suits against gunmakers
Pa. municipalities could not sue for damages under a bill sent to Gov. Ridge. It would require trigger locks.
By Glen Justice
INQUIRER HARRISBURG BUREAU
HARRISBURG - A proposal to ban Philadelphia and other cities from suing gun manufacturers received final legislative approval yesterday and was sent to Gov. Ridge, who is expected to sign it into law in the coming weeks.
The bill would prevent Pennsylvania counties and municipalities from joining Boston, Chicago, Camden and 25 other cities that are moving to sue gunmakers to recover costs related to gun violence.
The proposal contains other provisions, including a requirement that all handguns be sold with trigger locks. Gun buyers who purchase the locks would receive immunity from civil litigation, although the law would not require them to actually use the locks.
Gov. Ridge, who opposes most gun control, called the bill a "very effective piece of legislation."
Because harsher restrictions on gun use had not made it to the final version of the bill, its passage was hailed as a victory for gun-rights advocates - and a bitter defeat for those looking for tighter controls.
"I wish that many young people who are now paralyzed or in the grave as the result of gun violence had the kind of protections we are giving gun manufacturers," said Rep. Curtis Thomas (D., Phila.).
Thirteen states prohibit lawsuits against gunmakers. Pennsylvania's bill was passed by the Senate Monday and cleared the House, 122-75, yesterday after a fierce floor debate.
Most of the action focused on the ban, which would prevent Philadelphia's mayor-elect, John F. Street, from fulfilling his campaign promise to join in the suits.
Lawmakers from Philadelphia and its suburbs were divided on the bill, with 26 supporting it and 34 opposing it. Three did not vote.
Opponents sprayed the bill with criticism and tried several unsuccessful parliamentary moves designed to derail it. They argued that it was unnecessary because no municipality has filed suit. They said that other industries did not enjoy the same protections. And they said that manufacturing standards could fall.
"We are sending a message to gun manufacturers that they can slack up a bit on the safety of firearms," said Rep. Lita Indzel Cohen (R., Montgomery).
Rep. Mark Cohen (D., Phila.) said: "A vote for this legislation is a vote to make it easier for people to be killed or seriously hurt by guns."
Advocates were equally tough, calling it a vote for the rights of sportsmen that the National Rifle Association fully supports.
"It's good public policy to protect legal businesses," said Rep. Thomas Gannon (R., Delaware).
Rep. Robert Godshall (R., Montgomery) noted that the gunmakers represent a $500 million industry in Pennsylvania that has been operating in the state for more than 100 years. He said litigation against the industry would set a bad precedent for others that make potentially dangerous products, whether they are baseball bats or fast food.
"The free market cannot survive much more of this litigation," Godshall said.
For his part, Ridge said his support was based on a belief that the right to sue the industry should rest with victims who were harmed by guns, noting that no person or class of people is prevented from suing by the bill.
"Municipalities may think they have cause, but ultimately, in my judgment, it resides with the individual who was directly harmed," he said.
He also noted that the state still had the right to sue, though no such effort has been announced.
The trigger-locks provision also was controversial, with both supporters and opponents calling it a small reform that will make little change.
Nationwide, trigger locks are one of the few gun-control efforts that have garnered widespread support, experts say. Seventeen states have safe-storage laws, five of which (including New Jersey) have trigger-lock laws.
Pennsylvania's trigger-lock provision does not apply to shotguns or rifles and would not require gun owners to use the locks once they leave the gun shop.
Because 90 percent of guns are now shipped by manufacturers with locks, the measure would affect only the few guns that do not already come with locks.
The bill also contains other measures, such as requiring anyone entering a courtroom statewide to check any weapon and making it a crime to own a gun with a serial number that has been removed.
Overall, many gun-control advocates were not happy with the bill. The House Common Sense Firearms Safety Caucus, a group of mostly Democrats formed earlier this year to push gun control, released a report card on the issue after yesterday's vote.
The caucus gave the legislature incompletes for reforms not yet completed and a "D" for trigger locks. Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), a member of the caucus, said that many gun-control measures were popular among voters and that the legislature ignored them at its own peril.
"It's contempt for the people of this state," he said. "It's like the General Assembly has its head in a hole, like an ostrich. They don't get the message."
Evans said the issue likely would surface in the elections next year, when all 203 House members face voters. With Republicans holding the House by just three seats, it could create a battleground.
For example, a Democratic challenger already has surfaced for House Majority Leader John Perzel (R., Phila.). Mark Chilutti, a victim of gun violence who is paralyzed, is making gun control a primary issue. Perzel, who controls the flow of legislation on the floor and helped engineer the Republican trigger-locks bill, wound up voting against it yesterday, but his spokesman said it had nothing to do with his opponent.
"He has questions about tying the hands of local governments," said Stephen Drachler.
In addition, many Democrats found themselves in an uncomfortable position earlier this year when trigger locks went before the House.
Democrats have long offered a host of gun-control measures, including a stronger trigger-locks bill. When Republicans put up a weaker Republican measure, Democrats could either vote for it, giving the GOP a political chit, or vote against it and risk being labeled as extremists.
"Once and for all, the issue will be dealt with in 2000," Evans said.
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited December 08, 1999).]
don't give a rat's butt about their rights and couldn't tell you 2 out of ten of the Bill of Rights.