Drizzt
Member
Suit aims at gun makers, vendors
Local case could blaze trail in drive to control weapons
By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 16, 2003
States and cities have reaped billions of dollars over the years by suing cigarette companies. Many municipalities around the country are now focusing their sights on another target – the gun industry.
They haven't had much success so far. But depending on how a judge rules next month, a lawsuit against several dozen gun manufacturers and distributors in San Diego Superior Court could be the first of its kind in the country to make it to trial.
The plaintiffs are a number of California cities and counties, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. They seek a variety of reforms in the gun industry and potentially millions of dollars.
At issue is whether gun makers and distributors are doing enough to keep their products from falling into the hands of criminals and juveniles – and, if not, whether a judge should be the one to fashion a remedy.
Earlier this month came what gun-control activists are trumpeting as a major development in the case: A former high-ranking official in the firearms industry filed an affidavit saying it was an open secret in the industry that some gun dealers illegally sold guns to criminals. In the document, he said the industry took a "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach" to the problem and made efforts to silence critics within the business.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs – and even some lobbyists for the gun industry – predict the affidavit could increase the chance that the case will get to trial rather than being thrown out of court.
"It's of enormous significance to our case," said San Francisco attorney Robert Nelson, one of the lead plaintiff's lawyers on the case. "It confirms all of the allegations in our complaint."
For their part, lawyers for the gun industry question the credibility and motives of the man who provided the affidavit, Robert A. Ricker, a former chief lobbyist and executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council.
They also say the affidavit – and, for that matter, the entire lawsuit – is long on generalities but short on any evidence of any specific wrongdoing within the industry. At a March 7 hearing, they will ask Judge Vincent Di Figlia to throw out the entire suit.
"To suggest that the industry is complicit in the illegal trafficking in firearms is patently false," said Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the defendants in the case.
If cities are allowed to pursue these lawsuits, the effects on the firearms industry could be devastating, he said.
"It isn't like tobacco," Keane said. "This is a small industry and it would bankrupt the industry, which is part of the motivation of some of these groups."
Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said two gun retailers named as defendants in the suit have been driven out of business "in whole or in part because of this litigation."
So far, the gun industry has been fairly successful in defeating these lawsuits in other parts of the country. Similar suits have been thrown out in cases brought by cities in Delaware, New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., among other places.
The cities of Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit and Newark, N.J., have also filed similar lawsuits that haven't been dismissed but aren't as close to trial as the San Diego case.
Also in the gun industry's favor is a 2001 ruling by the California Supreme Court saying gun makers can't be sued for the criminal misuse of their legal weapons.
The plaintiffs in the San Diego case say that ruling shouldn't affect them because they are suing under a different legal theory – the theory that the gun industry, by negligently allowing weapons to fall into the hands of criminals, is creating a public nuisance and engaging in unfair business practices.
Although the city of San Diego isn't a plaintiff in the litigation, the case was assigned to San Diego Superior Court by the state Judicial Council. In addition to San Francisco and Los Angeles, the plaintiffs include Oakland, Sacramento, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto and several other California cities and counties.
There are more than 30 defendants, including Baretta U.S.A. Corp., Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock Inc. and Browning Arms Co.
In a motion filed this month, the plaintiffs say the industry has "been aware for years that many of the gun dealers through which they sell their guns engage in unscrupulous or irresponsible practices that supply the criminal gun market."
They cite one California dealer that "sold guns for years despite repeatedly violating federal laws, transferring more than 9,000 guns without keeping records, supplying guns to felons, juveniles, and suspected traffickers."
Allen Rostron, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is providing legal assistance to the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs are seeking a number of different remedies from the judge.
Among other things, Rostron said, they want the judge to order the industry to adopt stricter standards to make it harder for criminals to buy guns through so-called "straw sales," where a felon or juvenile arranges for someone else to buy the gun for him.
Rostron said the plaintiffs might ask the judge to order gun makers to install more safety devices on their products, as well as locking devices to prevent criminals from using a stolen weapon. The plaintiffs also might ask for civil penalties that could total millions of dollars.
The defendants, meanwhile, argue that the industry has a healthy record of compliance with the numerous state and federal laws regarding the manufacture and distribution of guns. They say the suit should be thrown out as a matter of law.
In a motion to dismiss the case, a lawyer for one of the defendants urged the judge "to decline the plaintiffs' invitation to design a new regulatory system for firearms manufacturing, distribution and sale, one which overrides the current comprehensive system enacted by elected representatives charged with that task."
The motion accused the plaintiffs of "hoping to find a sympathetic court that is willing to legislate from the bench – a formidable task given the broad and vague claims for relief in this matter."
If Di Figlia declines to dismiss the suit after the March 7 hearing, the case could go to trial as early as April.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030216-9999_1m16gunsuit.html
Local case could blaze trail in drive to control weapons
By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 16, 2003
States and cities have reaped billions of dollars over the years by suing cigarette companies. Many municipalities around the country are now focusing their sights on another target – the gun industry.
They haven't had much success so far. But depending on how a judge rules next month, a lawsuit against several dozen gun manufacturers and distributors in San Diego Superior Court could be the first of its kind in the country to make it to trial.
The plaintiffs are a number of California cities and counties, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. They seek a variety of reforms in the gun industry and potentially millions of dollars.
At issue is whether gun makers and distributors are doing enough to keep their products from falling into the hands of criminals and juveniles – and, if not, whether a judge should be the one to fashion a remedy.
Earlier this month came what gun-control activists are trumpeting as a major development in the case: A former high-ranking official in the firearms industry filed an affidavit saying it was an open secret in the industry that some gun dealers illegally sold guns to criminals. In the document, he said the industry took a "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach" to the problem and made efforts to silence critics within the business.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs – and even some lobbyists for the gun industry – predict the affidavit could increase the chance that the case will get to trial rather than being thrown out of court.
"It's of enormous significance to our case," said San Francisco attorney Robert Nelson, one of the lead plaintiff's lawyers on the case. "It confirms all of the allegations in our complaint."
For their part, lawyers for the gun industry question the credibility and motives of the man who provided the affidavit, Robert A. Ricker, a former chief lobbyist and executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council.
They also say the affidavit – and, for that matter, the entire lawsuit – is long on generalities but short on any evidence of any specific wrongdoing within the industry. At a March 7 hearing, they will ask Judge Vincent Di Figlia to throw out the entire suit.
"To suggest that the industry is complicit in the illegal trafficking in firearms is patently false," said Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the defendants in the case.
If cities are allowed to pursue these lawsuits, the effects on the firearms industry could be devastating, he said.
"It isn't like tobacco," Keane said. "This is a small industry and it would bankrupt the industry, which is part of the motivation of some of these groups."
Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said two gun retailers named as defendants in the suit have been driven out of business "in whole or in part because of this litigation."
So far, the gun industry has been fairly successful in defeating these lawsuits in other parts of the country. Similar suits have been thrown out in cases brought by cities in Delaware, New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., among other places.
The cities of Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit and Newark, N.J., have also filed similar lawsuits that haven't been dismissed but aren't as close to trial as the San Diego case.
Also in the gun industry's favor is a 2001 ruling by the California Supreme Court saying gun makers can't be sued for the criminal misuse of their legal weapons.
The plaintiffs in the San Diego case say that ruling shouldn't affect them because they are suing under a different legal theory – the theory that the gun industry, by negligently allowing weapons to fall into the hands of criminals, is creating a public nuisance and engaging in unfair business practices.
Although the city of San Diego isn't a plaintiff in the litigation, the case was assigned to San Diego Superior Court by the state Judicial Council. In addition to San Francisco and Los Angeles, the plaintiffs include Oakland, Sacramento, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto and several other California cities and counties.
There are more than 30 defendants, including Baretta U.S.A. Corp., Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock Inc. and Browning Arms Co.
In a motion filed this month, the plaintiffs say the industry has "been aware for years that many of the gun dealers through which they sell their guns engage in unscrupulous or irresponsible practices that supply the criminal gun market."
They cite one California dealer that "sold guns for years despite repeatedly violating federal laws, transferring more than 9,000 guns without keeping records, supplying guns to felons, juveniles, and suspected traffickers."
Allen Rostron, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is providing legal assistance to the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs are seeking a number of different remedies from the judge.
Among other things, Rostron said, they want the judge to order the industry to adopt stricter standards to make it harder for criminals to buy guns through so-called "straw sales," where a felon or juvenile arranges for someone else to buy the gun for him.
Rostron said the plaintiffs might ask the judge to order gun makers to install more safety devices on their products, as well as locking devices to prevent criminals from using a stolen weapon. The plaintiffs also might ask for civil penalties that could total millions of dollars.
The defendants, meanwhile, argue that the industry has a healthy record of compliance with the numerous state and federal laws regarding the manufacture and distribution of guns. They say the suit should be thrown out as a matter of law.
In a motion to dismiss the case, a lawyer for one of the defendants urged the judge "to decline the plaintiffs' invitation to design a new regulatory system for firearms manufacturing, distribution and sale, one which overrides the current comprehensive system enacted by elected representatives charged with that task."
The motion accused the plaintiffs of "hoping to find a sympathetic court that is willing to legislate from the bench – a formidable task given the broad and vague claims for relief in this matter."
If Di Figlia declines to dismiss the suit after the March 7 hearing, the case could go to trial as early as April.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030216-9999_1m16gunsuit.html
