I think the following should set precidence for the entire issue and give a legal foundation to the industry. Aparently no other municipalities have bothered trying to sue Ruger since.
STURM, RUGER APPLAUDS DISMISSAL OF CINCINNATI LAWSUIT
Southport, Connecticut
October 7, 1999
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., the largest U.S. firearms manufacturer, favorably responded to the dismissal of the Cincinnati mayor's lawsuit today. This was the first dismissal of the lawsuits which have been filed by certain mayors alleging that firearms manufacturers should be held legally responsible for the intentional criminal misuse of their products.
"This was the correct decision. Courts have uniformly held on many prior occasions that manufacturers of lawful, non-defective products which are sold legally cannot be held liable for subsequent criminal misuse of these products," stated Sturm, Ruger Vice President and General Counsel, Stephen L. Sanetti. "To hold otherwise would have serious implications for all sorts of products which can be criminally misused. The precedent of holding firearms manufacturers liable could have been applied to many lawful product manufacturers, and it is not the proper function of the courts to create new law which could eradicate entire industries."
"As the judge in the Cincinnati case correctly observed," Sanetti continued, "complex social and constitutional issues such as firearms regulation should be decided by legislatures, not by individual juries. We scrupulously follow the law in all aspects of our business, and the mayors know this. They should not be expending taxpayer resources on failed legal theories, suing the very same companies that furnish their police departments and law-abiding citizens within their communities with high-quality firearms. The only beneficiaries are the trial lawyers."
"We are the wrong defendants, and they are the wrong plaintiffs, claiming wrong legal theories, in the wrong forums. Instead, they should work with us to intensify firearms safety education programs which do save lives, and we urge them to direct their own law enforcement efforts to prosecute violent felons and those who knowingly sell guns illegally to them. We would be delighted to work together with them on these important public safety issues, but instead they have chosen to file legally and factually groundless lawsuits."
"This is the first such city lawsuit to be heard and the first to be dismissed. As long as judges continue to apply the law and do not succumb to political pressure, we do not expect it to be the the last one to be properly rejected by the courts."
STURM, RUGER APPLAUDS DISMISSALS OF TWO MORE CITY LAWSUITS (BRIDGEPORT AND MIAMI)
Southport, Connecticut
December 13, 1999
Responding to dismissals of the lawsuits filed against the Company and others by the cities of Bridgeport, CT and Miami, FL, Sturm, Ruger Vice President and General Counsel Stephen L. Sanetti had this to say:
"I can do no better than to quote briefly from the two judges who carefully studied the issues presented in dismissing the two cases."
In dismissing the Bridgeport suit on Friday, December 12, 1999, Judge Robert McWeeny said:
'As a matter of law the plaintiffs lack standing to litigate these claims; thus, the court is without jurisdiction to hear this case. The plaintiffs have no statutory basis or common law basis to recoup their expenditures. They lack any statutory authorization to initiate such claims...They seek to regulate firearms in a manner that is preempted by State law...The plaintiffs have failed to present a claim that is cognizable by law.'
Echoing these sentiments in dismissing the Miami suit today, Judge Amy Dean said in her opinion:
'The Court dismisses the County's amended complaint because the county is not a proper party plaintiff to this action. Further, the county has failed to plead a cause of action for strict product liability, negligence, nuisance, constructive trust, or injunction under Florida law.'
'Further, the court concludes that, based on the nature of the county's claims and the manner in which the county has framed its complaint, the county cannot by amendment plead any set of facts which would support any cause of action against these defendants arising out of the criminal, suicidal, or accidental shootings of Miami-Dade citizens...(or overcome) the bar against cost recovery embodied in the remoteness doctrine and the prohibition against municipal cost recovery under common law.'
Sanetti concluded, "We are not the cities' enemy in the fight against violent crime and irresponsible firearms misuse. There are many ways to address the issues without resorting to wasting taxpayer money on legally baseless lawsuits urged by trial lawyers and special-interest groups."
"Both crimes and accidents with guns have dropped dramatically during the last decade to record low levels. With intelligent co-operation with law enforcement and mutual support of firearms safety procedures pioneered by the industry, we believe these trends will continue, regardless of the politically-motivated diversion of resources forced upon all parties by these needless lawsuits."
STURM, RUGER APPLAUDS DISMISSAL OF CINCINNATI LAWSUIT
Southport, Connecticut
October 7, 1999
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., the largest U.S. firearms manufacturer, favorably responded to the dismissal of the Cincinnati mayor's lawsuit today. This was the first dismissal of the lawsuits which have been filed by certain mayors alleging that firearms manufacturers should be held legally responsible for the intentional criminal misuse of their products.
"This was the correct decision. Courts have uniformly held on many prior occasions that manufacturers of lawful, non-defective products which are sold legally cannot be held liable for subsequent criminal misuse of these products," stated Sturm, Ruger Vice President and General Counsel, Stephen L. Sanetti. "To hold otherwise would have serious implications for all sorts of products which can be criminally misused. The precedent of holding firearms manufacturers liable could have been applied to many lawful product manufacturers, and it is not the proper function of the courts to create new law which could eradicate entire industries."
"As the judge in the Cincinnati case correctly observed," Sanetti continued, "complex social and constitutional issues such as firearms regulation should be decided by legislatures, not by individual juries. We scrupulously follow the law in all aspects of our business, and the mayors know this. They should not be expending taxpayer resources on failed legal theories, suing the very same companies that furnish their police departments and law-abiding citizens within their communities with high-quality firearms. The only beneficiaries are the trial lawyers."
"We are the wrong defendants, and they are the wrong plaintiffs, claiming wrong legal theories, in the wrong forums. Instead, they should work with us to intensify firearms safety education programs which do save lives, and we urge them to direct their own law enforcement efforts to prosecute violent felons and those who knowingly sell guns illegally to them. We would be delighted to work together with them on these important public safety issues, but instead they have chosen to file legally and factually groundless lawsuits."
"This is the first such city lawsuit to be heard and the first to be dismissed. As long as judges continue to apply the law and do not succumb to political pressure, we do not expect it to be the the last one to be properly rejected by the courts."
STURM, RUGER APPLAUDS DISMISSALS OF TWO MORE CITY LAWSUITS (BRIDGEPORT AND MIAMI)
Southport, Connecticut
December 13, 1999
Responding to dismissals of the lawsuits filed against the Company and others by the cities of Bridgeport, CT and Miami, FL, Sturm, Ruger Vice President and General Counsel Stephen L. Sanetti had this to say:
"I can do no better than to quote briefly from the two judges who carefully studied the issues presented in dismissing the two cases."
In dismissing the Bridgeport suit on Friday, December 12, 1999, Judge Robert McWeeny said:
'As a matter of law the plaintiffs lack standing to litigate these claims; thus, the court is without jurisdiction to hear this case. The plaintiffs have no statutory basis or common law basis to recoup their expenditures. They lack any statutory authorization to initiate such claims...They seek to regulate firearms in a manner that is preempted by State law...The plaintiffs have failed to present a claim that is cognizable by law.'
Echoing these sentiments in dismissing the Miami suit today, Judge Amy Dean said in her opinion:
'The Court dismisses the County's amended complaint because the county is not a proper party plaintiff to this action. Further, the county has failed to plead a cause of action for strict product liability, negligence, nuisance, constructive trust, or injunction under Florida law.'
'Further, the court concludes that, based on the nature of the county's claims and the manner in which the county has framed its complaint, the county cannot by amendment plead any set of facts which would support any cause of action against these defendants arising out of the criminal, suicidal, or accidental shootings of Miami-Dade citizens...(or overcome) the bar against cost recovery embodied in the remoteness doctrine and the prohibition against municipal cost recovery under common law.'
Sanetti concluded, "We are not the cities' enemy in the fight against violent crime and irresponsible firearms misuse. There are many ways to address the issues without resorting to wasting taxpayer money on legally baseless lawsuits urged by trial lawyers and special-interest groups."
"Both crimes and accidents with guns have dropped dramatically during the last decade to record low levels. With intelligent co-operation with law enforcement and mutual support of firearms safety procedures pioneered by the industry, we believe these trends will continue, regardless of the politically-motivated diversion of resources forced upon all parties by these needless lawsuits."