cuchulainn
Member
from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/p...00&en=9f7146e9f479ff64&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/p...00&en=9f7146e9f479ff64&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
A New Push to Grant Gun Industry Immunity From Suits
By JOHN TIERNEY
wASHINGTON, April 3 — Last fall, when Americans were fixated by the serial sniper killings in the suburbs here, Congress postponed voting on legislation protecting the gun industry against lawsuits. Now that most of the guns in the news are being fired by soldiers, not criminals, the industry's defenders seem more ready to be counted.
Beginning a new drive to shield the industry, the House Judiciary Committee today approved a bill giving gun manufacturers and dealers immunity against many suits, including ones already in court brought by shooting victims and municipalities. The suits fault the makers for not adding safety features and for distribution practices that make it easy for criminals to get guns.
With the House and Senate in Republican control and with majorities in both chambers sponsoring the bill, its prospects look strong and could well depend on how a handful of swing senators vote in the event of a filibuster.
In the House Judiciary Committee today, one Democrat, Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia, joined 20 Republicans to approve the bill while 11 Democrats voted against it.
Granting immunity would be a serious setback for advocates of gun control, who have turned to state courts increasingly in recent years after meeting resistance in legislatures. They have denounced the proposed legislation as an unfair favor to an industry and a federal usurpation of states' rights. They say Congress would be denying injured citizens and violence-ridden cities the right to sue companies supplying an illegal underground market in guns.
The other side depicts the suits as an attack on beleaguered small companies by a coalition of wealthy trial lawyers and Democrats with access to municipal treasuries and grants from liberal foundations. Supporters of gun rights say the suits are intended to cripple the industry with legal bills and to impose gun controls outside the democratic process.
"We're trying to stop making public policy through the courts with these nuisance suits," said Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, who introduced the bill along with 247 co-sponsors.
The Senate version is sponsored by 52 members, enough to pass it unless there is a filibuster by Democrats.
"A filibuster is absolutely an option," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. "I can't imagine giving an exemption like this to one industry, especially this one. Toys are more heavily regulated than guns, and there's no immunity for the toy industry against litigation."
Senator Larry E. Craig, the Idaho Republican who is the lead sponsor in the Senate, noted that nine Democrats are sponsoring the bill and predicted that enough more might join Republicans to provide the 60 votes to stop a filibuster.
"I think we'll be successful this session," Mr. Craig said. "The Democrats have found that being aggressive advocates of gun control hasn't worked for them."
Gun control has indeed been a risky issue for Democrats with rural constituencies, and legislatures in more than 30 states have passed laws protecting the gun industry against lawsuits.
Gun control plays well in urban areas, on the other hand, and two dozen cities and counties have filed suits seeking damages for the costs of gun violence. Other suits have been filed by individual victims and by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which sued 165 gun makers and distributors. So far none of the suits have succeeded, and eight have been dismissed.
But advocates of gun control have been heartened by some favorable rulings and by the start of a trial in federal court in Brooklyn for the N.A.A.C.P.'s suit. The president of the N.A.A.C.P., Kweisi Mfume, reacted to the proposed legislation by saying, "Some in Congress, goaded by the gun lobby, are determined to slam the courthouse door in the face of current and future victims of gun violence."
Lawrence Keane, the general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, estimated that the suits had so far cost the industry more than $100 million in legal fees, which he said was an unfair burden on a relatively small industry with many family-owned businesses.
"These suits are an attempt to blame law-abiding manufacturers for the wrongdoing of criminals," Mr. Keane said. "It's like blaming a drunk-driving accident on General Motors or a brewery."
He noted that the bills in the House and Senate would still allow suits against gun makers and distributors who "knowingly and willfully" violate a law or negligently provide a gun to someone they should know would probably misuse it to injure others.
But the bills would eliminate most of the suits now filed against gun makers and dealers, said Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group representing many of the municipalities and individuals suing the industry.
Mr. Henigan said that it would be difficult to prove that a dealer knowingly violated the law, and that it would become impossible to collect damages from manufacturers selling guns to licensed dealers who later supplied the underground market.
"This is an egregious form of special-interest legislation that would bring progress toward safer guns to a screaming halt and make it more difficult for gun violence victims to recover damages," he said. "It would prevent cities from collecting damages against gun manufacturers who maintain a distribution system which they know ensures the continual supply of guns to the illegal market."
Mr. Henigan called the proposed law "a rather radical intrusion by the Congress into the workings of state courts" and said it was hypocritical for conservatives to support the bills while professing to believe in states' rights.
But Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research group, said the legislation would defend the rights of state legislatures against policies imposed by mayors and judges in other states.
"The municipal gun litigation is an utter travesty, and I think the supporters of Second Amendment liberty have every right to seek federal legislation," said Mr. Olson, who analyzes the gun lawsuits in his new book, "The Rule of Lawyers," a critique of trial lawyers. "There is no violation of proper federalism for Congress to pre-empt litigation by which New York intends to forcibly curtail the relatively open gun-selling regimes of states like South Carolina and Virginia."
The proposed legislation is not scheduled yet for a floor vote in either house, but its sponsors said they hoped to see action possibly this spring.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
