www.nytimes.com/library/national/100299guns-talks.html
The sharks are circling and they smell blood in the water.
The sharks are circling and they smell blood in the water.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Progress or Sellout?
- Thread starter Karanas
- Start date
Sorry, I don't know what went wrong there.
*********************************************
October 2, 1999
Major Gun Makers Talk With Cities on Settling Suit
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
In their first major meeting with officials from cities that are suing the firearms industry, the nation's leading gun manufacturers, trying to get the suits dropped, have agreed to begin negotiations to improve gun safety and reduce the flow of weapons to criminals.
Gun executives who attended the meeting said they would quickly respond to a list of the cities' demands, including mandatory safety devices on weapons and a crackdown on corrupt gun retailers.
If an agreement can be reached, municipal officials said, they will withdraw their suits, which demand hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for the cost of gun violence on their streets.
The firearms industry had previously resisted talks with its opponents, insisting that it could prevail in court against any lawsuits, as it almost always has.
So the very meeting of the two sides, which was held in Washington on Monday, was seen as highly significant by the participants.
"There were some manufacturers on our side," one industry executive said, "who two or three months ago would never have expected to go to such a meeting."
Pressure had been growing on the gun makers, however, as the first several of the lawsuits filed by 28 cities and counties moved into or near the discovery phase, which the plaintiffs maintained might well uncover damaging corporate documents. Such documents proved crucial in
producing settlements between the states and the tobacco industry last year.
More pressure came later this week, as a California appeals court cleared the way for a trial in which a gun maker, Navegar Inc., could be held liable for a murderer's use of its product. In addition, the Colt's Manufacturing Company, one of the nation's oldest gun makers, trying to
lessen its own risk from litigation, acted this week to reduce its role in producing handguns for the consumer market.
The participants at the Washington meeting cautioned that the talks were preliminary and that many obstacles to a settlement remained. Some gun makers, most notably the so-called Ring of Fire companies that encircle Los Angeles and produce cheap guns favored by criminals, were not
invited.
Also uninvited was a leading opponent of the industry, John Coale, a Washington lawyer whose legal team is representing five cities, including New Orleans and Newark.
And several other cities, including Chicago and Detroit, which feel they have very strong cases against the industry, did not attend.
But one reason for optimism, some participants said, is that Robert Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry's major trade organization, was behind a carefully developed framework that provided common ground for both sides in the talks.
Delfay, who has close ties to the National Rifle Association, stressed that the discussions should focus on ways to reduce accidental shootings and curb the flow of guns to criminals. Agreement on that focus, along with a willingness on the part of most cities to drop their demand for money, led one industry lawyer to remark, "I don't think I've ever been at such a meeting where both sides want the same thing."
The municipalities' demands were presented by Jim Hahn, the City Attorney of Los Angeles, an easygoing man who is said to have made a good impression on the industry officials.
Perhaps the most important and far-reaching of the demands was that the gun companies establish tighter contractual control over their chain of distribution to wholesalers and then retailers, and so curb the supply of handguns to criminals and juveniles through corrupt dealers.
Any dealer who was found by Federal tracing to be providing a sizable number of guns used in crimes would lose his supply of products from the manufacturer. Until now, the gun makers have denied that they bear any responsibility for what happens to a gun after it leaves the factory.
To enforce the agreement, the cities would require that it be entered as a consent decree by courts in the states where the cities suing the gun industry are situated.
An independent monitor, picked by the cities and approved by the gun makers, would be appointed with authority to oversee the agreement. The gun companies would pay for the monitor, who could be removed only for serious breach of duties, lawyers involved in the talks said.
The idea for the monitor came from Eliot J. Spitzer, New York State's Attorney General, who helped get the talks started by threatening to file the first state suit against the gun makers but then delayed it to give them a chance to negotiate. Spitzer attended the Washington meeting, as did Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's Attorney General, who has also threatened to sue.
The most prominent gun company executive in attendance was Ed Shultz, the chief executive of Smith & Wesson, the nation's largest firearms manufacturer.
Also present were officials from Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt's Manufacturing, O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Taurus, Glock and Beretta.
Among other steps that the companies would have to take under the demands put forward by Hahn would be agreement to stop selling handguns at gun shows or on the Internet, a halt to advertisements claiming that handguns increase safety in homes and support for limiting
customers to one handgun purchase a month, a way to try to stop illegal traffickers and straw purchasers who buy guns to resell to criminals or juveniles.
The one-gun-a-month idea, which is now law in Virginia and California, has been strongly opposed in the past by industry executives, who describe it as profit-compromising interference that will do little to stop criminals.
Gun executives at the Washington meeting asked the cities instead to agree to lobby Congress for an increase in the budget of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that the agency can better monitor dealers and trace more guns used in crimes, and to push the Justice Department to get United States attorneys to prosecute gun traffickers more vigorously.
The cities are happy to support those proposals but hardly find them sufficient.
As for gun safety, the cities said the companies should be required to provide by next year external locks on all guns and to incorporate by 2004 new technology, still under development, that would personalize a gun so that only its owner could fire it.
One city attorney who took part said Hahn had presented the proposals as a wish list but had told the gun companies that if they did not agree to almost everything on the list, the cities would go ahead with their lawsuits.
"We regard this as a sweet deal" for the gun makers, this lawyer said, because the cities would be giving up the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in claims.
Detroit and Chicago did not take part, a lawyer familiar with their thinking said, "because the tobacco companies only made concessions when they realized they could lose, and the gun companies don't yet believe they will lose."
"Right now," the lawyer said, "they are just putting up a smokescreen."
Coale, whose group of lawyers represent New Orleans, Atlanta, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Newark, said he too felt that the gun companies were not yet ready to negotiate seriously. He held earlier talks with Robert Ricker of the American Shooting Sports Council, another
industry group, only to see Ricker fired for daring to meet with him.
"I think Spitzer and Blumenthal are being used," Coale said, "to make it look like the gun industry is reasonable."
On the other side, Bruce Jennings, who owns B. L. Jennings Inc., a large gun wholesaler in Nevada, and has close ties to the group of handgun makers around Los Angeles, said none of those California companies had been invited to attend, or even informed about the talks by Delfay, breeding suspicion that any agreement would be reached at their expense.
The exclusion of the California companies from the talks underscores one of the major differences between this latest development and the negotiations that eventually produced a settlement between the states and the tobacco industry. There are only a handful of cigarette companies, and, while competitive, they had a largely unified negotiating stance. But the gun industry is made up of many small, often barely profitable companies that are characterized by different cultures and dislike one another.
One of the California gun makers, Davis Industries, in part to avoid the municipal suits, has filed for Federal bankruptcy protection, a tactic that the others in the Ring of Fire group may copy.
*********************************************
October 2, 1999
Major Gun Makers Talk With Cities on Settling Suit
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
In their first major meeting with officials from cities that are suing the firearms industry, the nation's leading gun manufacturers, trying to get the suits dropped, have agreed to begin negotiations to improve gun safety and reduce the flow of weapons to criminals.
Gun executives who attended the meeting said they would quickly respond to a list of the cities' demands, including mandatory safety devices on weapons and a crackdown on corrupt gun retailers.
If an agreement can be reached, municipal officials said, they will withdraw their suits, which demand hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for the cost of gun violence on their streets.
The firearms industry had previously resisted talks with its opponents, insisting that it could prevail in court against any lawsuits, as it almost always has.
So the very meeting of the two sides, which was held in Washington on Monday, was seen as highly significant by the participants.
"There were some manufacturers on our side," one industry executive said, "who two or three months ago would never have expected to go to such a meeting."
Pressure had been growing on the gun makers, however, as the first several of the lawsuits filed by 28 cities and counties moved into or near the discovery phase, which the plaintiffs maintained might well uncover damaging corporate documents. Such documents proved crucial in
producing settlements between the states and the tobacco industry last year.
More pressure came later this week, as a California appeals court cleared the way for a trial in which a gun maker, Navegar Inc., could be held liable for a murderer's use of its product. In addition, the Colt's Manufacturing Company, one of the nation's oldest gun makers, trying to
lessen its own risk from litigation, acted this week to reduce its role in producing handguns for the consumer market.
The participants at the Washington meeting cautioned that the talks were preliminary and that many obstacles to a settlement remained. Some gun makers, most notably the so-called Ring of Fire companies that encircle Los Angeles and produce cheap guns favored by criminals, were not
invited.
Also uninvited was a leading opponent of the industry, John Coale, a Washington lawyer whose legal team is representing five cities, including New Orleans and Newark.
And several other cities, including Chicago and Detroit, which feel they have very strong cases against the industry, did not attend.
But one reason for optimism, some participants said, is that Robert Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry's major trade organization, was behind a carefully developed framework that provided common ground for both sides in the talks.
Delfay, who has close ties to the National Rifle Association, stressed that the discussions should focus on ways to reduce accidental shootings and curb the flow of guns to criminals. Agreement on that focus, along with a willingness on the part of most cities to drop their demand for money, led one industry lawyer to remark, "I don't think I've ever been at such a meeting where both sides want the same thing."
The municipalities' demands were presented by Jim Hahn, the City Attorney of Los Angeles, an easygoing man who is said to have made a good impression on the industry officials.
Perhaps the most important and far-reaching of the demands was that the gun companies establish tighter contractual control over their chain of distribution to wholesalers and then retailers, and so curb the supply of handguns to criminals and juveniles through corrupt dealers.
Any dealer who was found by Federal tracing to be providing a sizable number of guns used in crimes would lose his supply of products from the manufacturer. Until now, the gun makers have denied that they bear any responsibility for what happens to a gun after it leaves the factory.
To enforce the agreement, the cities would require that it be entered as a consent decree by courts in the states where the cities suing the gun industry are situated.
An independent monitor, picked by the cities and approved by the gun makers, would be appointed with authority to oversee the agreement. The gun companies would pay for the monitor, who could be removed only for serious breach of duties, lawyers involved in the talks said.
The idea for the monitor came from Eliot J. Spitzer, New York State's Attorney General, who helped get the talks started by threatening to file the first state suit against the gun makers but then delayed it to give them a chance to negotiate. Spitzer attended the Washington meeting, as did Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's Attorney General, who has also threatened to sue.
The most prominent gun company executive in attendance was Ed Shultz, the chief executive of Smith & Wesson, the nation's largest firearms manufacturer.
Also present were officials from Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt's Manufacturing, O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Taurus, Glock and Beretta.
Among other steps that the companies would have to take under the demands put forward by Hahn would be agreement to stop selling handguns at gun shows or on the Internet, a halt to advertisements claiming that handguns increase safety in homes and support for limiting
customers to one handgun purchase a month, a way to try to stop illegal traffickers and straw purchasers who buy guns to resell to criminals or juveniles.
The one-gun-a-month idea, which is now law in Virginia and California, has been strongly opposed in the past by industry executives, who describe it as profit-compromising interference that will do little to stop criminals.
Gun executives at the Washington meeting asked the cities instead to agree to lobby Congress for an increase in the budget of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that the agency can better monitor dealers and trace more guns used in crimes, and to push the Justice Department to get United States attorneys to prosecute gun traffickers more vigorously.
The cities are happy to support those proposals but hardly find them sufficient.
As for gun safety, the cities said the companies should be required to provide by next year external locks on all guns and to incorporate by 2004 new technology, still under development, that would personalize a gun so that only its owner could fire it.
One city attorney who took part said Hahn had presented the proposals as a wish list but had told the gun companies that if they did not agree to almost everything on the list, the cities would go ahead with their lawsuits.
"We regard this as a sweet deal" for the gun makers, this lawyer said, because the cities would be giving up the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in claims.
Detroit and Chicago did not take part, a lawyer familiar with their thinking said, "because the tobacco companies only made concessions when they realized they could lose, and the gun companies don't yet believe they will lose."
"Right now," the lawyer said, "they are just putting up a smokescreen."
Coale, whose group of lawyers represent New Orleans, Atlanta, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Newark, said he too felt that the gun companies were not yet ready to negotiate seriously. He held earlier talks with Robert Ricker of the American Shooting Sports Council, another
industry group, only to see Ricker fired for daring to meet with him.
"I think Spitzer and Blumenthal are being used," Coale said, "to make it look like the gun industry is reasonable."
On the other side, Bruce Jennings, who owns B. L. Jennings Inc., a large gun wholesaler in Nevada, and has close ties to the group of handgun makers around Los Angeles, said none of those California companies had been invited to attend, or even informed about the talks by Delfay, breeding suspicion that any agreement would be reached at their expense.
The exclusion of the California companies from the talks underscores one of the major differences between this latest development and the negotiations that eventually produced a settlement between the states and the tobacco industry. There are only a handful of cigarette companies, and, while competitive, they had a largely unified negotiating stance. But the gun industry is made up of many small, often barely profitable companies that are characterized by different cultures and dislike one another.
One of the California gun makers, Davis Industries, in part to avoid the municipal suits, has filed for Federal bankruptcy protection, a tactic that the others in the Ring of Fire group may copy.
This is why we cannot depend on politicians (who have to get elected at all costs) OR corporations (who have to generate a profit at all costs) to fight for our freedoms. WE have to fight for them. On this issue, there can be no more compromise. If the citizenry of this country refuses to do so, or expects someone else to do that for us, then we deserve what we get and have no reason to complain.