INTERNET PROJECT!
FIND QUOTES FROM SUING MAYORS SHOWING THAT THE
LAWSUITS ARE DESIGNED TO FINANCIALLY HARM OR
BANKRUPT GUN MANUFACTURERS! ! ! !
E-MAIL YOUR QUOTES WITH VERIFICATION HERE!
www@saf.org
http://www.saf.org
SAF LAWSUIT HEADED TO APPEALS COURT
On November 30th of last year, SAF, the nation's oldest and largest firearms civil rights legal defense, research,
publishing and educational organization, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, DC against the U.S. Conference of
Mayors (USCM) and 24 individual mayors for conspiracy to violate civil and constitution rights, including the
First, Second and Ninth Amendments, as well as the creation of undue burden on lawful interstate commerce.
A federal judge has recently dismissed SAF's suit against only two of the mayors on personal jurisdictional
grounds, but not on merit. In addition, the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning that the lawsuit could be filed
again when additional damning evidence against the mayors is available. The judge claimed that SAF could not
PROVE the conspiracy charge at this time (which is why we needed discovery) and therefore the suit should be
dismissed. This outraged SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, who masterminded the lawsuit.
"This judge set an impossible standard for our side to prevail and we intend to appeal this poor decision," stated
Gottlieb. "The mayors admit holding closed door meetings with lawyers to discuss bringing lawsuits against the gun
makers, yet this judge wanted us to prove what happened in the private sessions without any discovery to uncover
what actually happened. That is absurd, since the mayors remain silent."
The judge also stated that he is likely to dismiss the suit against the rest of the anti-gun mayors on the same
grounds, but SAF is unable to appeal this decision until he makes the rest of his findings on the other mayors. This
waiting game is frustrating to gun rights supporters.
"It was a horrible decision compounded by the unnecessary delay which prevents our appealing the decision," said
Gottlieb. "Cut us loose so SAF can make our arguments to another court. This suit is far from over!"
To help boost our arguments against the mayors, SAF is now asking Internet users to locate verifiable
quotes from Mayors admitting the goal of the lawsuits is to create bankruptcy or financially harm gun
manufacturers. Additional proof could turn this case around and prevent more mayors from temporarily
escaping just punishment for their misdeeds.
See the link above for e-mailing any good quotes. Thanks for the help.
Despite this temporary setback, the Mayor's credibility was shaken just by the filing of our lawsuit. Not only did
our efforts force the Clinton/Gore Administration to hold a bogus press conference to claim the currently empty
threat of joining with the Mayor's, but only Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia have dared to file a similar lawsuit
against gun makers since our lawsuit was announced. All other Mayor's planned lawsuits appear to be on hold for
now.
"In response to the Washington, DC and Philadelphia suits, SAF has already put plans in motion to sue those
Mayor of the crime-plagued areas," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "And if the Clinton/Gore minions ever file
suit, they will be hauled into court yet again!"
Furthermore, the anti-gun Mayor's are losing in the courtrooms across America. The city of Cincinnati earned the
dubious distinction of being the first city to be derailed in their attack against firearm manufacturers, distributors
and trade associations. The Court firmly held that the lawsuit was both vague and unsupported by legal precedent.
The Bridgeport and Miami-Dade suits were similarly dismissed. In a written opinion, Judge Robert McWeeny
who dismissed the case, ruled that the city of Bridgeport, "lack(s) any statutory authorization to initiate such claims"
of responsibility against the firearms industry. In Florida, Judge Dean ruled in the dismissal of the Miami-Dade
action that the county "lacks standing".. and that "Public Nuisance (criminal misuse of firearms) does not apply to
the design, manufacture, and distribution of a lawful product."
More good news was made with the dismissal of large portions of both the Atlanta and Chicago lawsuits, with
serious doubts surrounding the remaining pieces. In fact, discovery has been halted for the Atlanta suit pending a
ruling from their State Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Georgia State law barring cities from suing gun
makers. All of these cases become legal precedent and provide further evidence against the Mayors' meritless
claims against a legal industry. So far the only victory by the mayors is for Cleveland, which violates entirely all
legal precedent, including the previous Cincinnati decision just a few months earlier.
"As more and more of these city mayors' suits are dismissed, the more it looks like these suits were only intended
to financially injure gun owners and the federally licensed producers and sellers of firearms," stated Gottlieb. "In
addition, the USCM readily admits that they are seeking legislation in the courtrooms, which is a clear violation of
the separation of powers upon which our great country was founded. This is cause to hold individual mayors and
the USCM responsible for their conspiratorial and unconstitutional assaults on law-abiding people."
More states are also intervening to stop the cities' ridiculous legal shenanigans by passing legislation prohibiting
such actions. To date, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming have enacted these laws and
several other states are considering it. Several cities affected by these state prohibitions have promised to violate
the state laws and continue their anti-gun efforts. This recklessness shows that gun grabbers have no respect for
the law or legal authority.
The SAF lawsuit alleges three counts against the groups. Count 1 is for violation of lawful interstate commerce.
The mayor's legal challenges have already forced several gun makers to declare bankruptcy, severely downsize
their product lines, and/or raise firearm prices, thus hurting consumers - including taxpayer-funded federal, state
and local law enforcement agencies - all across the country. Count 2 is for violation of First Amendment rights.
The mayor's lawsuits have prevented the gun manufacturers from educating consumers about their products out of
fear of seeing ads in the courtrooms, not to mention that many of the mayor's lawsuits are trying to eliminate or
severely curtail the ability of running ads on firearm products in general. Count 3 is for violation of the Second and
Ninth Amendment rights. The Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms according to the
recent decision in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). The mayor's attempt to
abridge the right to keep and bear arms by putting gun makers out of business causes a violation of the individual's
means to self-defense which is recognized in every courtroom and falls under the Ninth Amendment rights.
Attorney Richard Gardiner, a well-known Washington, D.C. firearms civil rights attorney, is the lead attorney
working this case against the mayors. In addition to Cincinnati, Miami-Dade, Bridgeport, Chicago and Atlanta, the
cities affected by the lawsuit are Boston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Cleveland,
Detroit, San Francisco, Berkeley, Sacramento, Oakland, East Palo Alto, Compton, West Hollywood, Inglewood,
Camden, Wilmington, Gary, and St. Louis.
While the Mayors and other gun grabbers maintain publicly that these lawsuit are designed to either (1) force gun
makers to create a safer product (i.e. trigger-locks, 'smart-gun technology, etc.) or (2) seek compensation for the
costs of 'gun violence', most rational people are rightfully skeptical and critical of these lawsuits. In fact, the
Second Amendment Foundation has uncovered a great number of documents showing that their true intention is
banning gun ownership by putting gun makers out of business through excessively burdensome legal defense costs.
"These unnecessary suits are being filed for two simple reasons – to win in the courts what has been rejected at the
polls and to destroy gun makers, and by extension the ability of law-abiding gun owners to purchase new
firearms," stated Alan Gottlieb. "If there is nobody left to manufacture guns, then the right of gun ownership
disappears."
The chance for winning financial compensation has been greatly increased after the recent ruling in Dix v. Beretta
U.S.A. corp. California Superior Court Judge Richard Hodge ordered plaintiffs to compensate Beretta for their
costs of litigation in defending itself against a lawsuit filed with the assistance of Handgun Control, Inc. and the San
Francisco law firm of Hersh & Hersh. Furthermore, the underlying case of gun ownership as a civil right have been
greatly increased because of the recent decision citing the Second Amendment as an individual right in U.S. v.
Emerson.
"Unscrupulous lawyers have raised the costs of ladders, coffee, automobiles, and other consumer goods through
similar nuisance lawsuits. We must defeat them and win damages, or gun owners might be forced to pay $6,000
for a $400 gun, or worse, there are no new guns for law-abiding Americans to purchase at all!"
Joining SAF in suing the mayors is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which recently filed their own lawsuit
on behalf of gun makers that could be hurt by the alleged conspiracy to provide S&W preference in police and
other governmental contracts after S&W cut a deal with the Clinton/Gore Administration. The forced S&W deal
with the devil could continue to unravel since many cities have not dropped S&W from their lawsuits, raising
serious questions about any benefits to S&W for holding to a non-contract agreement. There are already
"clarifications" made by S&W that don't match the actual text of the agreement so stay tuned for more changes.
See the NSSF news release by clicking on this sentence. Another suit is filed by several Texas lawmakers.
"The more pressure put on the anti-gunners, the better," concluded Gottlieb. "With an unbiased judge, gun owners
have a good chance to win against the gun-grabbing mayors."
The Second Amendment Foundation is a tax-deductible education, legal defense and publishing organization
founded in 1974 and has over 600,000 individual citizen supporters nationwide. It previously has funded
successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf
of American gun owners.
All Second Amendment Foundation lawsuits are funded directly by our members and we can only take
on cases as our funding allows. If you want to contribute financial help to this landmark legal battle,
please send a check or money order to:
SAF Mayors Lawsuit
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA
98005.
http://www.saf.org
If you would prefer to charge your tax-deductible donation to your VISA/MasterCard, American
Express or Discover card, please call 1-800-426-4302.
Cincinnati Councilman to Sue City to Prevent Appeal of City's Lawsuit Against Gun
Makers!
October 7, 1999 - News: CINCINNATI GUN LAWSUIT DISMISSED AGAINST GUN
MANUFACTURERS!
FIND QUOTES FROM SUING MAYORS SHOWING THAT THE
LAWSUITS ARE DESIGNED TO FINANCIALLY HARM OR
BANKRUPT GUN MANUFACTURERS! ! ! !
E-MAIL YOUR QUOTES WITH VERIFICATION HERE!
www@saf.org
http://www.saf.org
SAF LAWSUIT HEADED TO APPEALS COURT
On November 30th of last year, SAF, the nation's oldest and largest firearms civil rights legal defense, research,
publishing and educational organization, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, DC against the U.S. Conference of
Mayors (USCM) and 24 individual mayors for conspiracy to violate civil and constitution rights, including the
First, Second and Ninth Amendments, as well as the creation of undue burden on lawful interstate commerce.
A federal judge has recently dismissed SAF's suit against only two of the mayors on personal jurisdictional
grounds, but not on merit. In addition, the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning that the lawsuit could be filed
again when additional damning evidence against the mayors is available. The judge claimed that SAF could not
PROVE the conspiracy charge at this time (which is why we needed discovery) and therefore the suit should be
dismissed. This outraged SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, who masterminded the lawsuit.
"This judge set an impossible standard for our side to prevail and we intend to appeal this poor decision," stated
Gottlieb. "The mayors admit holding closed door meetings with lawyers to discuss bringing lawsuits against the gun
makers, yet this judge wanted us to prove what happened in the private sessions without any discovery to uncover
what actually happened. That is absurd, since the mayors remain silent."
The judge also stated that he is likely to dismiss the suit against the rest of the anti-gun mayors on the same
grounds, but SAF is unable to appeal this decision until he makes the rest of his findings on the other mayors. This
waiting game is frustrating to gun rights supporters.
"It was a horrible decision compounded by the unnecessary delay which prevents our appealing the decision," said
Gottlieb. "Cut us loose so SAF can make our arguments to another court. This suit is far from over!"
To help boost our arguments against the mayors, SAF is now asking Internet users to locate verifiable
quotes from Mayors admitting the goal of the lawsuits is to create bankruptcy or financially harm gun
manufacturers. Additional proof could turn this case around and prevent more mayors from temporarily
escaping just punishment for their misdeeds.
See the link above for e-mailing any good quotes. Thanks for the help.
Despite this temporary setback, the Mayor's credibility was shaken just by the filing of our lawsuit. Not only did
our efforts force the Clinton/Gore Administration to hold a bogus press conference to claim the currently empty
threat of joining with the Mayor's, but only Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia have dared to file a similar lawsuit
against gun makers since our lawsuit was announced. All other Mayor's planned lawsuits appear to be on hold for
now.
"In response to the Washington, DC and Philadelphia suits, SAF has already put plans in motion to sue those
Mayor of the crime-plagued areas," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "And if the Clinton/Gore minions ever file
suit, they will be hauled into court yet again!"
Furthermore, the anti-gun Mayor's are losing in the courtrooms across America. The city of Cincinnati earned the
dubious distinction of being the first city to be derailed in their attack against firearm manufacturers, distributors
and trade associations. The Court firmly held that the lawsuit was both vague and unsupported by legal precedent.
The Bridgeport and Miami-Dade suits were similarly dismissed. In a written opinion, Judge Robert McWeeny
who dismissed the case, ruled that the city of Bridgeport, "lack(s) any statutory authorization to initiate such claims"
of responsibility against the firearms industry. In Florida, Judge Dean ruled in the dismissal of the Miami-Dade
action that the county "lacks standing".. and that "Public Nuisance (criminal misuse of firearms) does not apply to
the design, manufacture, and distribution of a lawful product."
More good news was made with the dismissal of large portions of both the Atlanta and Chicago lawsuits, with
serious doubts surrounding the remaining pieces. In fact, discovery has been halted for the Atlanta suit pending a
ruling from their State Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Georgia State law barring cities from suing gun
makers. All of these cases become legal precedent and provide further evidence against the Mayors' meritless
claims against a legal industry. So far the only victory by the mayors is for Cleveland, which violates entirely all
legal precedent, including the previous Cincinnati decision just a few months earlier.
"As more and more of these city mayors' suits are dismissed, the more it looks like these suits were only intended
to financially injure gun owners and the federally licensed producers and sellers of firearms," stated Gottlieb. "In
addition, the USCM readily admits that they are seeking legislation in the courtrooms, which is a clear violation of
the separation of powers upon which our great country was founded. This is cause to hold individual mayors and
the USCM responsible for their conspiratorial and unconstitutional assaults on law-abiding people."
More states are also intervening to stop the cities' ridiculous legal shenanigans by passing legislation prohibiting
such actions. To date, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming have enacted these laws and
several other states are considering it. Several cities affected by these state prohibitions have promised to violate
the state laws and continue their anti-gun efforts. This recklessness shows that gun grabbers have no respect for
the law or legal authority.
The SAF lawsuit alleges three counts against the groups. Count 1 is for violation of lawful interstate commerce.
The mayor's legal challenges have already forced several gun makers to declare bankruptcy, severely downsize
their product lines, and/or raise firearm prices, thus hurting consumers - including taxpayer-funded federal, state
and local law enforcement agencies - all across the country. Count 2 is for violation of First Amendment rights.
The mayor's lawsuits have prevented the gun manufacturers from educating consumers about their products out of
fear of seeing ads in the courtrooms, not to mention that many of the mayor's lawsuits are trying to eliminate or
severely curtail the ability of running ads on firearm products in general. Count 3 is for violation of the Second and
Ninth Amendment rights. The Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms according to the
recent decision in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). The mayor's attempt to
abridge the right to keep and bear arms by putting gun makers out of business causes a violation of the individual's
means to self-defense which is recognized in every courtroom and falls under the Ninth Amendment rights.
Attorney Richard Gardiner, a well-known Washington, D.C. firearms civil rights attorney, is the lead attorney
working this case against the mayors. In addition to Cincinnati, Miami-Dade, Bridgeport, Chicago and Atlanta, the
cities affected by the lawsuit are Boston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Cleveland,
Detroit, San Francisco, Berkeley, Sacramento, Oakland, East Palo Alto, Compton, West Hollywood, Inglewood,
Camden, Wilmington, Gary, and St. Louis.
While the Mayors and other gun grabbers maintain publicly that these lawsuit are designed to either (1) force gun
makers to create a safer product (i.e. trigger-locks, 'smart-gun technology, etc.) or (2) seek compensation for the
costs of 'gun violence', most rational people are rightfully skeptical and critical of these lawsuits. In fact, the
Second Amendment Foundation has uncovered a great number of documents showing that their true intention is
banning gun ownership by putting gun makers out of business through excessively burdensome legal defense costs.
"These unnecessary suits are being filed for two simple reasons – to win in the courts what has been rejected at the
polls and to destroy gun makers, and by extension the ability of law-abiding gun owners to purchase new
firearms," stated Alan Gottlieb. "If there is nobody left to manufacture guns, then the right of gun ownership
disappears."
The chance for winning financial compensation has been greatly increased after the recent ruling in Dix v. Beretta
U.S.A. corp. California Superior Court Judge Richard Hodge ordered plaintiffs to compensate Beretta for their
costs of litigation in defending itself against a lawsuit filed with the assistance of Handgun Control, Inc. and the San
Francisco law firm of Hersh & Hersh. Furthermore, the underlying case of gun ownership as a civil right have been
greatly increased because of the recent decision citing the Second Amendment as an individual right in U.S. v.
Emerson.
"Unscrupulous lawyers have raised the costs of ladders, coffee, automobiles, and other consumer goods through
similar nuisance lawsuits. We must defeat them and win damages, or gun owners might be forced to pay $6,000
for a $400 gun, or worse, there are no new guns for law-abiding Americans to purchase at all!"
Joining SAF in suing the mayors is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which recently filed their own lawsuit
on behalf of gun makers that could be hurt by the alleged conspiracy to provide S&W preference in police and
other governmental contracts after S&W cut a deal with the Clinton/Gore Administration. The forced S&W deal
with the devil could continue to unravel since many cities have not dropped S&W from their lawsuits, raising
serious questions about any benefits to S&W for holding to a non-contract agreement. There are already
"clarifications" made by S&W that don't match the actual text of the agreement so stay tuned for more changes.
See the NSSF news release by clicking on this sentence. Another suit is filed by several Texas lawmakers.
"The more pressure put on the anti-gunners, the better," concluded Gottlieb. "With an unbiased judge, gun owners
have a good chance to win against the gun-grabbing mayors."
The Second Amendment Foundation is a tax-deductible education, legal defense and publishing organization
founded in 1974 and has over 600,000 individual citizen supporters nationwide. It previously has funded
successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf
of American gun owners.
All Second Amendment Foundation lawsuits are funded directly by our members and we can only take
on cases as our funding allows. If you want to contribute financial help to this landmark legal battle,
please send a check or money order to:
SAF Mayors Lawsuit
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA
98005.
http://www.saf.org
If you would prefer to charge your tax-deductible donation to your VISA/MasterCard, American
Express or Discover card, please call 1-800-426-4302.
Cincinnati Councilman to Sue City to Prevent Appeal of City's Lawsuit Against Gun
Makers!
October 7, 1999 - News: CINCINNATI GUN LAWSUIT DISMISSED AGAINST GUN
MANUFACTURERS!