Gun Liability Control

[FRIZ]

The Wall Street Journal
July 27, 2005; Page A12

Gun Liability Control
Editorial

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1122 ... 00,00.html

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.

[Dr. Snubnose]

Well said my friend...well said...Doc

[ghostrider]

Congress has every right to stop this abuse of the legal system, all the

Sad, really. Senator Miller is talking about preventing an end-run around Congress’s authority, but doesn’t seem to care about the fact that such lawsuits are an end-run around the God given rights, enumerated in the Constitution.

Today, I heard someone say that there has been a “poison pill” attached. That is; if your gun is stolen and used in a crime, and you didn’t use a gun lock, then you’re open to prosecution. One more “infringement