RE: S. 659--The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a proposed Democratic filibuster.
Dear Senator Wyden:
I write today to express, in the strongest possible terms, my condemnation of any proposed Democratic Party filibuster regarding the above-referenced bill. Just such an action is being publically contemplated by Senator Reed.
Believe it or not, I not a member mass mailing you on the behalf of the NRA. I am an attorney admitted to the State Bar, but writing on my own behalf and not as a voice of my employer. I have become thoroughly convinced that the more shall we say, “adventurous†members of our profession are in dire need of being reined in. First there were the tobacco lawsuits, which were at least grounded in some manner of industrial duplicity or tortfeasance, but that success has emboldened certain trial lawyers to the precipice of insanity.
It is my belief that the current “handgun lawsuits†are calculated to do nothing more than achieve through the judiciary that which cannot be attained legislatively–the shutdown of the gun industry. This time around, there is not one credible hint of industrial duplicity on the part of the gun manufacturers. In fact, the City of Boston, in dropping their lawsuit, expressly praised the gun industry’s efforts and acknowledged their genuine concern in tackling the gun violence problem through true commonsense measures.
These gun suits that are marked for an end under the proposed Congressional bar are not the legitimate advancement of tort or public nuisance law. As someone who has trained as an attorney yourself Senator, you should be somewhat aware of the true nature of the legally spurious reasoning that undergirds these lawsuits by the Brady Campaign, et al. These cases all singularly lack any compelling grounds to overturn centuries of judicial doctrine concerning the classical elements of negligence, (to wit: duty, breach, causation, and damages), or to trash the principle of intervening criminal causality. In fact, one need not even be legally trained at all to see the true silliness of these cases.
Substitute another legally produced product, marketed through government regulated distributors and retailers, which is then criminally misused, and ask yourself where the lawsuits against Ford and Smirnoff are when a drunk driver wipes out a family in an “accident†caused by the negligent marketing of Mustangs and liquor to young adults, the group “known†by the industry as the most likely to abuse their relative products. Such a case, while inspired by true tragedy, would be a “dog†in the parlance of the legal profession. That is unless of course, I could have some millionaire patrons infuse some money into my clients’ suits to achieve some barely disguised political goals or merely bleed the potential defendants to death.
The absurdity of these types of lawsuits also lay in the fact that they perpetuate one another. As I write this, I note an attorney in California is attempting to have Nabisco’s Oreo brand cookies banned via the courts as “too dangerous for children to eat.†Are the Oreos mis-manufactured? No. They contain the "wrong" type of fat according to one self-anointed savior with a law degree to his name. The Oreo suit follows a similar one against McDonald’s only recently thrown out. This madness needs to stop now, legislatively, not awaiting successful summary judgement hearings.
If you engage in a filibuster of S. 659, I will consider you not only contemptuous of the rule of law, but even worse, contemptuous of logic itself. I sincerely hope it is not essentially your position that you would stand and advocate the continued filing of frivolous lawsuits against the manufacturers of legally produced, though criminally misused products. I shall truly be appalled if you refuse to see these suits for what they are because I know you are intelligent enough to see them as illegitimate. Should I note your support of any such filibuster, please have no doubt that I will never vote for you irrespective of how I find your stands on any other issues. I will spread the word as to why I will not vote for you as far and as widely as I can. My potential withholding of political support for you may not mean much today, but such displeasure as I would feel accretes to your disadvantage eventually.
Sincerely,
NAME AND BAR # OMITTED
Dear Senator Wyden:
I write today to express, in the strongest possible terms, my condemnation of any proposed Democratic Party filibuster regarding the above-referenced bill. Just such an action is being publically contemplated by Senator Reed.
Believe it or not, I not a member mass mailing you on the behalf of the NRA. I am an attorney admitted to the State Bar, but writing on my own behalf and not as a voice of my employer. I have become thoroughly convinced that the more shall we say, “adventurous†members of our profession are in dire need of being reined in. First there were the tobacco lawsuits, which were at least grounded in some manner of industrial duplicity or tortfeasance, but that success has emboldened certain trial lawyers to the precipice of insanity.
It is my belief that the current “handgun lawsuits†are calculated to do nothing more than achieve through the judiciary that which cannot be attained legislatively–the shutdown of the gun industry. This time around, there is not one credible hint of industrial duplicity on the part of the gun manufacturers. In fact, the City of Boston, in dropping their lawsuit, expressly praised the gun industry’s efforts and acknowledged their genuine concern in tackling the gun violence problem through true commonsense measures.
These gun suits that are marked for an end under the proposed Congressional bar are not the legitimate advancement of tort or public nuisance law. As someone who has trained as an attorney yourself Senator, you should be somewhat aware of the true nature of the legally spurious reasoning that undergirds these lawsuits by the Brady Campaign, et al. These cases all singularly lack any compelling grounds to overturn centuries of judicial doctrine concerning the classical elements of negligence, (to wit: duty, breach, causation, and damages), or to trash the principle of intervening criminal causality. In fact, one need not even be legally trained at all to see the true silliness of these cases.
Substitute another legally produced product, marketed through government regulated distributors and retailers, which is then criminally misused, and ask yourself where the lawsuits against Ford and Smirnoff are when a drunk driver wipes out a family in an “accident†caused by the negligent marketing of Mustangs and liquor to young adults, the group “known†by the industry as the most likely to abuse their relative products. Such a case, while inspired by true tragedy, would be a “dog†in the parlance of the legal profession. That is unless of course, I could have some millionaire patrons infuse some money into my clients’ suits to achieve some barely disguised political goals or merely bleed the potential defendants to death.
The absurdity of these types of lawsuits also lay in the fact that they perpetuate one another. As I write this, I note an attorney in California is attempting to have Nabisco’s Oreo brand cookies banned via the courts as “too dangerous for children to eat.†Are the Oreos mis-manufactured? No. They contain the "wrong" type of fat according to one self-anointed savior with a law degree to his name. The Oreo suit follows a similar one against McDonald’s only recently thrown out. This madness needs to stop now, legislatively, not awaiting successful summary judgement hearings.
If you engage in a filibuster of S. 659, I will consider you not only contemptuous of the rule of law, but even worse, contemptuous of logic itself. I sincerely hope it is not essentially your position that you would stand and advocate the continued filing of frivolous lawsuits against the manufacturers of legally produced, though criminally misused products. I shall truly be appalled if you refuse to see these suits for what they are because I know you are intelligent enough to see them as illegitimate. Should I note your support of any such filibuster, please have no doubt that I will never vote for you irrespective of how I find your stands on any other issues. I will spread the word as to why I will not vote for you as far and as widely as I can. My potential withholding of political support for you may not mean much today, but such displeasure as I would feel accretes to your disadvantage eventually.
Sincerely,
NAME AND BAR # OMITTED
Last edited:
