Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Gun Liability Control
The NRA meets the trial bar at high noon.
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
If we recall correctly, it was Shakespeare who wrote "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." That's going too far, but the Senate can do the metaphoric equivalent this week by voting to protect gun makers from lawsuits designed to put them out of business.
Senate Republicans say they have 60 votes to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would protect gun makers from lawsuits claiming they are responsible for crimes committed with their products. The support includes at least 10 Democrats, which speaks volumes about the political shift against "gun control" in recent years.
The "assault weapons ban" expired with a whimper last year. State legislatures have been rolling back firearm laws because the restrictions were both ineffectual and unpopular. Gun-controllers have responded by avoiding legislatures and going to court, teaming with trial lawyers and big city mayors to file lawsuits blaming gun makers for murder. Companies have been hit with at least 25 major lawsuits, from the likes of Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago and Cleveland. A couple of the larger suits (New York and Washington, D.C.) are sitting in front of highly creative judges and could drag on for years.
Which seems to be part of the point. The plaintiffs have asked judges to impose the sort of "remedies" that Congress has refused to impose, such as trigger locks or tougher restrictions on gun sales. Some mayors no doubt also hope for a big payday. But short of that, the gun-control lobby's goal seems to be keep the suits going long enough to drain profit from the low-margin gun industry.
Gun makers have yet to lose a case, but these victories have cost more than $200 million in legal bills. This is a huge sum for an industry collectively smaller than any Fortune 500 company and that supports 20,000 jobs at most. Publicly listed companies such as Smith & Wesson have seen the legal uncertainty reflected in their share price. Money for legal fees could be better spent creating new jobs, researching ways to make guns safer, or returning profits to shareholders.
Congress has every right to stop this abuse of the legal system, all the more so because it amounts to an end-run around its legislative authority. A single state judge imposing blanket regulations on a gun maker would effectively limit the Second Amendment rights of gun buyers across the nation. Liability legislation would also send a message that Congress won't stand by as the tort bar and special interests try to put an entirely lawful business into Chapter 11.
The gun makers aren't seeking immunity from all liability; they would continue to face civil suits for defective products or for violating sales regulations. The Senate proposal would merely prevent a gun maker from being pillaged because a criminal used one of its products to perform his felony. Murder can be committed with all kinds of everyday products, from kitchen knives to autos, but no one thinks GM is to blame because a drunk driver kills a pedestrian. (On the other hand, give the lawyers time.) To adapt a familiar line, guns don't kill industries; lawyers do.
The NRA meets the trial bar at high noon.
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
If we recall correctly, it was Shakespeare who wrote "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." That's going too far, but the Senate can do the metaphoric equivalent this week by voting to protect gun makers from lawsuits designed to put them out of business.
Senate Republicans say they have 60 votes to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would protect gun makers from lawsuits claiming they are responsible for crimes committed with their products. The support includes at least 10 Democrats, which speaks volumes about the political shift against "gun control" in recent years.
The "assault weapons ban" expired with a whimper last year. State legislatures have been rolling back firearm laws because the restrictions were both ineffectual and unpopular. Gun-controllers have responded by avoiding legislatures and going to court, teaming with trial lawyers and big city mayors to file lawsuits blaming gun makers for murder. Companies have been hit with at least 25 major lawsuits, from the likes of Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago and Cleveland. A couple of the larger suits (New York and Washington, D.C.) are sitting in front of highly creative judges and could drag on for years.
----------
Which seems to be part of the point. The plaintiffs have asked judges to impose the sort of "remedies" that Congress has refused to impose, such as trigger locks or tougher restrictions on gun sales. Some mayors no doubt also hope for a big payday. But short of that, the gun-control lobby's goal seems to be keep the suits going long enough to drain profit from the low-margin gun industry.
Gun makers have yet to lose a case, but these victories have cost more than $200 million in legal bills. This is a huge sum for an industry collectively smaller than any Fortune 500 company and that supports 20,000 jobs at most. Publicly listed companies such as Smith & Wesson have seen the legal uncertainty reflected in their share price. Money for legal fees could be better spent creating new jobs, researching ways to make guns safer, or returning profits to shareholders.
Congress has every right to stop this abuse of the legal system, all the more so because it amounts to an end-run around its legislative authority. A single state judge imposing blanket regulations on a gun maker would effectively limit the Second Amendment rights of gun buyers across the nation. Liability legislation would also send a message that Congress won't stand by as the tort bar and special interests try to put an entirely lawful business into Chapter 11.
----------
The gun makers aren't seeking immunity from all liability; they would continue to face civil suits for defective products or for violating sales regulations. The Senate proposal would merely prevent a gun maker from being pillaged because a criminal used one of its products to perform his felony. Murder can be committed with all kinds of everyday products, from kitchen knives to autos, but no one thinks GM is to blame because a drunk driver kills a pedestrian. (On the other hand, give the lawyers time.) To adapt a familiar line, guns don't kill industries; lawyers do.
