news
Today, nearly two dozen cities and counties are suing firearms manufacturers as a group for the law enforcement and public health expenses those localities say they incur from gun injuries and deaths. These "junk lawsuits" frequently are assisted by the Legal Action Project of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Since Handgun Control, Inc.^s legal action arm is involved, it is no surprise that these lawsuits deceitfully ignore the millions, if not billions, of dollars saved each year when honest citizens legally use their guns to deter crimes against individuals and property.
The suit brought by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley seeks $433 million in damages, accusing 12 suburban gun shops, 22 gun manufacturers and four gun distributors of creating "a public nuisance." The suit alleges that they "knowingly design, market and distribute firearms in order to facilitate their illegal entry into and possession in Chicago, where they are illegal to possess and where they often are used in the commission of crimes."
A Chicago Tribune editorial (Nov. 14, 1998) agreed that the mayor^s anger at the misuse of handguns is understandable, but called his lawsuit "wrongheaded and ill-advised. It represents an abuse of the tort liability system and a dangerous extension of the tactic employed in similar lawsuits against the tobacco industry of using potentially bankrupting lawsuits to force makers of legal but unpopular products to quit."
But, unlike the tobacco companies, gun manufacturers have strong arguments for the substantial benefits their products offer consumers. The instigators of these "junk lawsuits" ignore these benefits, as they hope to drive manufacturers into bankruptcy by making them defend themselves and their stockholders in courtrooms across the nation.
Every year in America, firearms are used three to five times more often for protection than they are misused by criminals. While less than 1% of the guns in America are used in violent crime in a given year, guns are misused in approximately 450,000 crimes. More importantly, however, far more Americans every year use guns to protect themselves and their families. Guns are used defensively as often as 2.5 million times a year, and in 98% of those cases, merely brandishing the firearm stops the attack.
Recognizing that many more crimes are prevented by armed law-abiding citizens every year than are committed by armed criminals, a recent study, "Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health," conducted by the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas, concludes that the crime deterrent benefits of firearms ownership outweigh the societal costs of guns used in crime by as much as a staggering $38.9 billion annually in the U.S.
In ignoring reality as they do, these "junk lawsuits" are not only bad public policy, they are also without legal foundation. To be victorious they must reverse the well-established tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. The following is indicative of what courts have had to say:
€ "Under all ordinary and normal circumstances in the absence of any reason to expect the
contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed with the assumption that others will obey the
criminal law."?Bennett v. The Cincinnati Checker Cab, citing Prosser, Tort, 3d Edition, 353 F.
Supp. 1206, 1209 (E.D. Kent. 1973)
€ Such lawsuits are "an obvious attempt unwise and unwarranted to ban or restrict handguns
through courts and juries, despite the repeated refusals of state legislatures and Congress to pass
strong, comprehensive gun-control measures."?Patterson v. Rohm Gessellschaft, 608 F. Supp.
1206, 1211 (N.D. Tex. 1985)
Other "junk lawsuits," such as the one filed by the mayor of New Orleans, seek to penalize firearms manufacturers, in essence, for not making guns "smarter," for not making a gun that can be fired only by its owner. The plaintiffs in these cases appear unconcerned that the technology they demand has yet to become practical.
Again, plaintiffs seek to reverse well-established tort law principle. In product liability cases, plaintiffs traditionally have been able to sue for compensation for injuries because: 1) a product was defective, 2) the defect posed an unreasonable danger to the user, and 3) the defect caused the injury. A "defective" product is one that doesn^t operate as a reasonable manufacturer would design and make it, as a reasonable consumer would expect, or as other products of its type. Courts uniformly have held that a defect must exist in the product at the time it was sold, and that plaintiff^s injury must have been the result of that defect. Defendants can^t be held liable for injuries that occur only because a properly operating product is criminally or negligently misused.
In a National Review article (Dec. 21, 1998), Prof. John R. Lott, Jr., wrote: "The futuristic guns advocated in the New Orleans suit . . . are far from reliable and will cost $900 when they are finally available." That cost, he said, "will fall far more heavily on law-abiding citizens than on criminals, decreasing the number of innocent people who could use guns to protect themselves." So-called "smart" guns might very well prevent some accidental gun deaths, but at what price? How many more lives might be lost because mandating such technology diminishes the ability of less affluent citizens to defend themselves and their families?
Using lawsuits to destroy a lawful and constitutionally-protected activity violates longstanding American principles. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that civil law suits cannot make it impossible for a free press to survive. That decision was based on the intent of the Framers, with respect to the First Amendment, that citizens should not be punished for criticizing public officials. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo Black noted the observance of St. George Tucker that, "Whenever . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Uploaded: 8/25/1999
Uploaded: 8/25/1999