Lawsuits

One of the best things about defending yourself with a gun is that very often you don't have to actually use it.  Merely showing the criminal your gun can often encourage the attacker to flee, similar to cockroaches scuttling for the nearest rock when you shine a light on them.

And you know what?  It applies to governments, too.

Snowflakes In Hell gets the hat tip for this one.

Kevin at The Smallest Minority and Uncle of SaysUncle are both complaining about the requirement for "standing" in order to challenge a law on Constitutional grounds.  In so doing, though, they are overstating the requirements a little. Kevin's summary was:

There's something wrong with a system that essentially demands that you break a law before you can challenge its Constitutionality.

I would be in full agreement with that statement, if in fact it was accurate.  However, it's not actually the case for most challenges.  I don't want to claim more expertise than I actually have, not being a lawyer, but as I understand it, the standing requirement is "an actual case or controversy".  That's not very illuminating, but when it is applied to First Amendment cases, it is generally applied such that you do NOT have to violate a law and wait to be charged before you can challenge the law.  Generally, for a First Amendment case, it's sufficient to show that something you want to publish might cause you to be charged if you actually do.  Usually you have to have some specific work in mind, for example, but even that isn't necessary if you're talking about, say, a regularly published magazine or newspaper, or some sort of project that you can specifically define but haven't yet invested money in producing (because it would be illegal). 

I'm afraid that standing, as applied to the 2nd Amendment, is another example of "gun bigots" applying different standards as a result of their bigotry. 

In the case of the DC Circuit, the courts were bound by the Navegar precedent.  That case arose from the assault weapons ban and set a very, very high bar for standing in gun related cases.  That bar was set so high, in fact, that a visit by BATFE agents to a firearms manufacturer to individually notify the manufacturer that certain of their products, named specifically in the law, was not deemed a "specific and individualized threat of prosecution"... because the manufacturer in question chose to comply with the law rather than disregard it (and risk a felony conviction if he lost).  If that sounds like nonsense to you, well, I can't say I disagree.

The bar is set significantly lower for First Amendment cases.  I'm not sure where it is set for other Constitutional rights, but I imagine the extremes of the issue are defined by the First and Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps one of the lawyers familiar with this issue and how standing in firearms cases differs from standing in First Amendment cases could give a good summary?

A lawyer/blogger is calling for student, staff, or faculty plaintiffs willing to sue public universities with gun free zone policies.  I can't vouch for whether he's any good as a lawyer, but those interested can look for themselves.  I certainty think someone should do this, but we need the best possible plaintiff and representation, so I'm not saying this is the right lawyer or you're the right plaintiff.  It's worth a thought, though.

The press has been making a lot of noise about a bill that recently passed the House. The bill would make explicit the long-understood principle that manufacturers are not legally liable for the criminal misuse of their legal products. The only thing about this bill that should surprise anyone is that Congress felt the need to make the principle explicit. After all, we all recognize that you can't sue a brewery because someone got drunk, tried to drive home, and killed someone in an accident. When criminal misuse begins, legal liability ends -- in fact, legal liability often ends well before the point of criminal misuse.

So why does Congress feel the need to restate this principle? Well, it seems that a certain group of people think that a political hot-button issue is enough to override the usual principles of law. They think that a pitiful enough victim will melt the heart of a judge enough to allow their claims to pass. And if it doesn't, well, there's always another victim, another judge, another jurisdiction.

Because there are lots of victims, but there is only a very small group behind the lawsuits. Yes, that's lawsuits -- plural. It's not a single abusive lawsuit, it is a systematic pattern of abuse. Not incidentally, exactly the sort of problem that a change in the law is meant to correct.

When I say a "certain group of people", I'm not referring to some nebulous grouping on the level of "people who like black cats". No, I'm referring to organizations. Perhaps 5-10 different organizations, counting a number of city governments and an approximately equal number of political organizations.

Oh, didn't I mention that? These suits are all brought by non-profit political lobbying groups, often in collaboration with city governments or puppet victims as the official plaintiffs. But these political organizations are paying the legal costs for the suits. Makes you go "hmm", doesn't it?

The truth is, these political organizations are trying to use the courts to force their targeted organizations to do business differently -- or not at all. They want court settlements or a judge's court-ordered sentence, but if they can't get either, they'll settle for suing their targets over and over and over again until they go bankrupt. After all, it's a lot easier and cheaper to file a lawsuit than it is to defend against one.

And who knows? If they keep trying, maybe they'll eventually get a judge willing to be swayed by his personal biases long enough to get a verdict in their favor. But that's not really a necessary part of their strategy; driving their targets out of business would do just fine.

And we're not talking about a safety issue here. These aren't SUVs with faulty tires and a tendency to roll over and play dead. We're talking about ordinary household items being used to commit crimes and then blaming the manufacturer of the product -- sort of like driving drunk, killing someone, and then suing the bar that sold you the beer along with the company that brewed and bottled it.

By this time you're probably not surprised that these groups have chosen this particular tactic because they can't get their programs through the legislature. They've been trying for about 70 years, and until recently they've had some amount of success. The past few years have seen their efforts dry up, though, and even in many places get rolled back. They're nervous. They're afraid. They're realizing that the American people really, fundamentally disagree with the principles they have chosen to dedicate their lives to supporting. And so they grasp at straws, and their allies in the media help them out by spinning the issue the way that these special-interest groups want it spun.

So what's the issue here?

Gun control.

If this surprises you, or if you're familiar with the issue but haven't heard it described this way before, maybe it's time you asked why.

(Note: This is an older article that I am reposting to get it into the archives properly.  The bill I mentioned was the first version of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which has since become law.)
 

Mark was arrested in Louisiana for open carry of his firearm, which is legal in that state.  He has now filed suit.  Nicki at The Liberty Zone seems to be on top of the case.

... if it gets to court, anyway.  It seems that the Violence Policy Center stole footage from Scott at the subguns discussion board, and he's considering legal action.  This could be fun.  I got the tip from SaysUncle.

This notice is a bit belated, but I'd like to offer congratulations to FishOrMan, who has won his appeal while representing himself, striking a small but personally significant blow for open-carry.

I've stayed away from blogging about the case for a couple reasons.  First, it seems to me that his actions were on the borderline of what the law allows; normal open carry is arguably legal under state law, by way of an affirmative defense, but open carry inside a bank strikes me as exactly the sort of situation that might legitimately "warrant alarm", which would violate the law.  Second, representing yourself in court is usually a very poor decision, and rarely bodes well for the results.  Third, given that he was representing himself, any commentary I could have offered would have been uncomfortably close to legal advice, something I am not qualified to offer, and might well do more harm than good.  And fourth, I was concerned that he had gotten himself into a foreseeable bad situation without adequately preparing for it, and thus put the whole concept of open-carry at risk in Washington State.

That said, I have been following the case personally, and I'm glad that he won. 

I do have one caution, though.

Just because you won this one on a technicality doesn't mean you'll win the next one.  Pick your fights more carefully, and make sure you're prepared to fight them before they start.

Alphecca notes a story where a police officer shot a young man with a bb gun, thinking that the gun was real and pointed at him, and asks whether there should be liability for the manufacturer (in making their product look very similar to a real firearm).

First, it's undisputed that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect anything that isn't a firearm, and BB guns clearly do not qualify.  Alphecca notes that he considers them weapons regardless; I agree that some certainly qualify as weapons but I feel they are more closely categorized as something else.  While a bb gun can cause serious injury, if a BB happens to hit a vulnerable spot, wounds from one are rarely life-threatening.

Regardless of whether or not a bb gun is a weapon, however, there should be no liability for the manufacturer.   BB guns closely resembling real firearms have legitimate uses (training, for example).  If criminals use their resemblance to real firearms for intimidation, they have only themselves to blame when the police or an armed citizen don't bother to extend the benefit of the doubt.  And if an innocent kid wants to act like a criminal, using his BB gun, he needs to find better role models... or accept the potentially fatal consequences of his decision not to.

Indeed, the police officer in the case Alphecca describes might well have a case against the deceased for negligent actions leading to emotional distress, lost work, and required counseling.  After all, when you threaten a police officer with what he perceives (reasonably) to be a firearm, the result is entirely predictable.  I'm not that litigious, of course, but the case could be made -- and probably would be made, were it ever to be economically feasible to do so.

But under no circumstances should the manufacturer be liable.  Moreover, a smart manufacturer would be wise to avoid creating a similarity between their BB guns -- which are capable of causing serious injury -- and similar devices which are entirely toys, such as cap guns, which (at least when I was a kid) offered bright orange plastic barrel plugs so that it was obvious the "gun" was not real.  BB guns may not be weapons, in my opinion, but they are definitely potentially dangerous, and should be recognized as such.

David Hardy reports on an Arizona appellate decision concerning negligent entrustment.  The decision reverses a summary judgement grant (meaning the case will go to trial), and the facts aren't pleasant: A habitual drunk with an IQ substantially below average is given a firearm by his father; the gun is subsequently taken away after it was used in a crime (by the owner's brother); the owner of the firearm had shot himself accidentally at least once.  The mother eventually returned the gun to the owner, who used it to shoot and kill someone while drunk.  The owner was charged with manslaughter, and the mother is being sued for negligent entrustment.  All these events involve adults.

While I agree with David that the outcome was foreseeable, albeit not immediately so, I disagree that this means the suit should continue.  The owner's parents had no right to possess or control the gun.  It was his property.  You could make a case for negligent entrustment IF it was an actual transaction rather than a restoration of property to its rightful owner, or if the owner was clearly impaired (drunk) when the firearm was returned.  But if he's not presenting an immediate risk, it's his property, end of story.

Anything else is to legalize theft "for their own good".  We've already seen this tactic in the gun control debate: where do you think all the guns people turn in for gun "buybacks" come from?  Nosy girlfriends and parents stealing the property of their family members or boyfriends and turning it in to the authorities.  It's sort of like the gestapo posters that used to advise you to turn in your friends for fun and profit.  Except that those taking advantage of the programs have to do their own dirty work.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler promptly came up with a half-cocked scheme to have the provinces empower Canadians to sue U.S. gun manufacturers whose legal products are used illegally in Canada.

It's quite a doctrine, that. The U.S. Congress, as it happens, has just passed a law shielding gun makers and dealers from liability in many negligence lawsuits; it's a bad law in some ways, but so would be any Canadian law saying the maker of a legal product is responsible for the way it's used. Please do not roll up this newspaper and beat anyone to death, no matter how infuriating you find the editorials: we wouldn't much like to be sued, and that surely wouldn't be far down the road. (As for citizens suing the government in Ottawa for bad decisions, on the gun registry, say, where do we sign up?)

That's a good analogy.  They also have about half the right idea about violent crime.

Police and prosecutors there have just stepped up their anti-gun and anti-gang efforts and will add resources by borrowing additional prosecutors. That makes sense: Toronto's gun violence is mainly gang violence. Mercifully, this problem of shooting sprees has not reached Montreal to the same degree as in Toronto, in part no doubt because police here have had some success against gang culture.

Unfortunately, they still think that restricting access to guns is a part of the solution.  But at least they are talking about restricting gang members' access to guns, rather than the general public.

Hours after President Bush signed a new law protecting gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson from some lawsuits, the industry filed a motion to dismiss a high-profile case filed by New York City.

But despite the law's clear language dismissing pending municipal lawsuits, both sides expect a fight over the law's legality.

President Bush signed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" at a White House ceremony Wednesday following House passage of the bill earlier this month.

No surprise here.  Now we need to find out whether the judges are willing to apply the law fairly and quickly, or if there's going to be a tussle.

SaysUncle reports that the President signed the bill (via the NRA).  I'll keep my eyes peeled for updates to the cases that would be affected by this. 

He also asks "What next?"  Good question.  In the past I've argued that repealing the Hughes Amendment would be a good step forward.  I'm going to back off of that a little -- I think it might make a better test case for our shiny new Justice and his friends, depending on who the second one turns out to be.  Sporting purposes test is a good target, but mostly symbolic.   

I figure national concealed carry is the next legislative target.  To short-circuit federalism concerns, treat it just like a driver's license -- if you can carry in your home state you can carry anywhere, with criminal penalties for police harassment.  Hell, piggyback it on the state-issued IDs -- amend the RealID act to add a "carry endorsement" to the standard.  Lemonade from lemons...

... has passed the House.   Alphecca has a good description of what it does (and what it doesn't).  It's already passed the Senate.  There shouldn't be a problem with Bush signing it, after which many of the lawsuits against firearms manufacturers will be dismissed.   The case that I have been following, DC v Beretta, should be one of them.

UPDATE: Looks like the trigger lock requirement was included in this version.  That's disappointing, since the version without that requirement could also have passed.  The problem would have been time; reconciling the bills between the House and the Senate would have required more time, and more time means more legal costs defending the suits already in motion.

While I think the trigger lock and "armor-piercing ammunition" provisions are both silly and bad precedent, as a practical matter their effect is small.  The real risk is later laws requiring the use of trigger locks, or lawsuits that make not using them subject to significant risk of liability.

New York City won a significant victory this week in its civil suit against the firearms industry, winning the right to information that could help prove its claim that the industry closes its eyes to the way guns get into the hands of criminals.

On Wednesday, a federal magistrate ruled that the city was entitled to federal data that traces the path of guns used in crimes, overruling objections by the Justice Department. Lawyers say that without the data the city would have difficulty proving its claim that the gun industry's marketing and distribution practices amount to a public nuisance.

This is pure politics. New York City wants to sue gunmakers, but they have problems proving any kind of liability under existing law. In order to make their absurd legal theories hold together, they want access to the tracing data from the BATFE. The "trace data" is a list of guns that have had their ownership traced following some contact with law enforcement, anything from being seized by an overzealous traffic cop from someone with a concealed-carry license to a murder weapon. There aren't any legal standards about what it takes to run a trace; all it takes is a request from the law enforcement agency, and that request doesn't have to say how the gun was found.

Once the request is made, the process is simple. The BATFE calls up the manufacturer of the firearm and asks "What happened to the gun with serial number x?" The firearm manufacturer says something like, "We sold it to distributor y", so the BATF calls distributor y, who says "We sold it to gun shop z". The BATF calls gun shop z and finds out that it was sold to citizen a... and so on, until the name of the owner matches with the person who was found with the gun or they reach someone who won't talk. This process is supposed to document how an individual gun ended up where it did, and it does that fairly well, so long as everyone in the chain is cooperative.

But the trace isn't run on every gun recovered from a criminal, and it's run on some guns that are recovered in non-criminal circumstances. It doesn't represent a random sample, either; police will trace a gun that they think is unusual, or if they have a suspect they are trying to pin something on. There's no point in tracing the cheap handgun used by a stickup artist, but there's every incentive to trace a handgun recovered from a civil rights activist who "deserves" a little harassment. In short, the data is just about an unscientific as it gets.

That's why the aggregated data should stay out of the courtroom. Lawyers for the various anti-gun lawsuits want to do two things: first, cherry pick the data for scary anecdotes that seem to make their point, even if entirely unrepresentative; second, they want to play the "guilt by association" game.

What I mean by that is simple. The lawyers want to hold up a chart that says, "60% of all traced firearms in this region came from this store" or "30% of all traced firearms in this region came from this manufacturer". That doesn't mean the manufacturer or the dealer sold to a criminal or did anything illegal. Quite likely they didn't even sell the gun to the person it was recovered from; firearms can go through quite a few different hands, and once a private citizen owns it he's not required to say what happened to it -- meaning the trace stops after the dealer sells it.

And, of course, if a dealer has a 30% marketshare in the region to start with, why should we be confused if 30% of traced guns passed through his store? The only problem is that the trace data doesn't have that information; there's no way to reality-check the data and realize that it isn't really surprising.

Make no mistake, the anti-gun groups want this data to use in court before a sympathetic judge and a simple jury. They need those caveats because the aggregate data is essentially meaningless, and an honest judge or smart jury will see through them right away.

Unfortunately, this particular ruling means that we may need to depend on that smart jury. (Depending on an honest judge is fickle, at best). Although an appeal may be possible, there's no certainty of a better result, and if the data is provided while the appeal is pending, even a favorable appeal would leave the anti-gun groups in possession of the data (even if they could not use it in court).

This isn't the end of the road by any means, but it is a loss. It's also another one of the consequences of our mixed-blessing victory in the Senate.

Council Members David Yassky (D-Brooklyn), Eva Moskowitz (D-Manhattan) and Albert Vann (D-Brooklyn) unveiled bold legislation today aimed at stopping the flow of illegal guns into New York. Their ?Gun Industry Responsibility Act? (GIRA) would make firearms manufacturers and dealers liable for reckless selling practices that put guns in the hands of criminals.

Under the GIRA, any victim of gun violence in New York State who is injured or killed by an illegal gun could sue the gun's manufacturer or dealer. Both manufacturers and dealers could exempt themselves from liability, however, by meeting a code of responsible conduct designed to prevent illegal gun trafficking.

?We are under attack by the gun industry,? Yassky, author of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, said. ?The manufacturers know who the dirty dealers are, but they refuse to do anything to stop them. That is why we have to use the courts to stop the violence ourselves.?

Folks, this is the downside to our Senate pseudo-victory. We blocked the AWB renewal, but as a result, we lost the gun liability bill -- and this sort of legislation is the result. It's actually worse than a simple lawsuit, because if it passes, it will specifically create liability. In other words, judges won't be able to throw out the suits because the legal theories are worthless; this legislation (again, if passed) will explicitly validate those legal theories.

This is the problem with elections; social idiots and psychopaths are the ones who win popularity contests.

Last week, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals last week unanimously upheld a trial court`s ruling dismissing the District`s "negligence" and "public nuisance" claims against the firearms industry. The appellate court`s decision specifically found that none of the plaintiffs stated a valid claim of negligence and that the District had not stated a claim of public nuisance on the facts alleged.

However, while the court said that the District could not sue under its unique "absolute liability" statute, it did allow that individual plaintiffs could. In doing so, the court has thrown out the traditional role of "liability." With the introduction of "absolute liability," a defendant is essentially stripped of almost any defense. While the Court took a positive step in affirming that firearm manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms due to (in this case) "negligence" and "public nuisance," the case represents yet another blatant example of the need to pass a comprehensive federal lawsuit protection bill. Allowing these types of lawsuits to continue unabated will be disastrous for the American firearm industry, and for your right to lawfully own firearms. We owe it to ourselves, and all gun owners across the country, to continue this fight until we pass a lawsuit bill as soon as possible. When we succeed in ultimately enacting a lawsuit bill into law, it will represent a monumental step forward for our rights. Rest assured we will keep you informed of our efforts.

As you can tell from the summary, this is a mixed blessing. We won a temporary reprieve, but there isn't likely to be a shortage of willing dupes for the anti-gun crowd to play "plantiff" for the news cameras. We'll just have to fight that one when it comes, I suppose.

By a vote of 3-0, a panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has upheld the District's historic statute allowing D.C. residents victimized by assault weapons to recover damages against the manufacturers of the guns. The Court rejected claims by the gun industry that the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The D.C. liability statute imposes strict liability on manufacturers of assault weapons that inflict injury or death in the District of Columbia. In addition, the statute holds manufacturers strictly liable for injuries caused by any firearm that can use a high-capacity ammunition magazine allowing the gun to shoot more than 12 rounds without the need to reload.

This is a blatant piece of politicing. DC had a lawsuit dismissed because the liability laws didn't cover it; they just passed one that did, specifically providing for liability for the manufacture of assault weapons when those weapons are used to commit crimes.

Never mind that they are banned in DC. Never mind that they can't be manufactured for civilian use under the federal ban. Never mind that their definition of an assault weapon includes any firearm that can accept a magazine over 10 rounds, which covers just about any semi-automatic firearm ever made. Never mind justice or a fair trial.

The NRA has a list of the lawsuits against the firearms industry up, and their current status. It's chilling to see how many there are, even noting that most of them have been dismissed.

This is one of those annoying cases that would have been prevented by S1805 had it become law. This ruling is the 9th Circuit refusing to hear an appeal "en banc", ie, by a panel of all judges on the court. The result of the refusal will be the case moving forward in the lower court.

The basic facts of the case, quoting from one ofthe dissenting opinions:

This is indeed a tragic case. On August 10, 1999, Buford Furrow, a mentally troubled man who was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun, approached the North Valley Jewish Community Center (JCC) in Granada Hills, California. He was armed with a number of firearms. He entered the JCC and proceeded to shoot and injure three young children, one teenager, and one adult. Furrow fled the JCC and, later that day, shot and killed Joseph Ileto, a United States Postal worker.

This action, as it comes before this court, is not against Furrow or even against the entities that sold the weapons to Furrow, but against the entities that manufactured the weapons outside of California and sold them outside of California.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant gun manufacturers and distributors produce, distribute, and sell more firearms than legal purchasers can buy, and that they knowingly facilitate, and benefit from, a secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms. Plaintiffs do not allege that Glock did anything illegal. Rather, they argue that Glock knew that the secondary market regularly provides guns to criminals and underage end users, but nonetheless failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the public from the risks created by the distribution and marketing schemes that create an illegal secondary market.

In other words, the gun manufacturer in the Buford Furrow case should somehow have prevented Furrow from acquiring firearms in a secondary transaction to which they were not a party. As you may recall, Furrow was nuts, and even recognized it himself. He was also a prohibited person (by reason of conviction for violent crimes), and the police were supposed to confiscate his firearms -- but they "never got around to it". Oh, well. There's another good quote that really expresses the legal theory of this case perfectly:

Thus, General Motors could be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile. The plaintiff would allege that General Motors knew that cars that can greatly exceed the legal speed limit are dangerous, and through advertising and by offering discounts, it increased the attractiveness of the car and the number of Corvettes on the road and thus increased the likelihood that a juvenile would steal a Corvette and operate it in a injurious manner.

That about says it all.

The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.

The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company?s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims? families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims? families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group?s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

The above is Bushmaster's press release about the settlement. Unfortunately it's more positive than it should be. While lawyers like to claim that paying a settlement does not constitute admission of wrongdoing, in the court of public opinion it is usually construed as an admission of guilt. It's a public relations victory for the anti-gun lobby, who can trumpet the settlement as evidence that the manufacturer did something wrong. And it's an indication that the insurance company doesn't feel like fighting these worthless lawsuits into their legal grave, which is a decision the insurance company makes on financial grounds rather than politics or PR.

This is a legal version of the prisoner's dilemma. It's better for all gun manufacturers if no one settles, because the anti-gun forces get no reward (since their suits are frivolous). Each time a manufacturer settles, rather than getting a suit dismissed with prejudice, the overall case against such lawsuits is weakened. But for a specific manufacturer in a specific case, paying a settlement is almost all positive; the suit goes away and the manufacturer's insurance company pays the settlement. The damage to the collective group of firearms manufacturers is overbalanced by the benefits to the single manufacturer.

Remember what happened to Smith and Wesson when they reached their agreement with the Clinton Administration? That's one of the costs a manufacturer considers before agreeing to settle -- the risk that the gun owners will view them as having made a deal with the devil. That's why Bushmaster included in their press release that they "did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business".

But paying out settlements harms the cause of gun rights, even if it is a financially-sound decision for the manufacturer. It would not be inappropriate to let Bushmaster know that they let you down with this settlement.

We need to come back after the elections and pass an immunity bill for the manufacturers, so that the financial threat of a long court fight is removed.

Saying a newly revised Missouri law bars such legal action, a state appeals court refused Tuesday to reinstate the city's lawsuit that sought compensation from gunmakers, distributors and related trade groups for gun-related injuries.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay called the ruling by the three-judge Missouri Court of Appeals disappointing, adding that it was not yet clear whether the city would further appeal.

Tuesday's decision upheld a St. Louis County judge's dismissal last October of the city's 1999 lawsuit. In that ruling, Circuit Judge Emmett O'Brien said such lawsuits would open "a floodgate to additional litigation," and that "issues of both logic and fairness" favored throwing out the case.

Cue the music: "And another one bites the dust..."

An Alameda County Superior Court jury yesterday found that firearm manufacturer Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was not responsible for the tragic 1994 accidental shooting death of a 14-year-old boy. Kenzo Dix was killed when his friend played with a firearm that was left loaded and unlocked by an irresponsible parent. The jury deliberated only five hours before returning a verdict in favor of Beretta U.S.A. Corp., finding the pistol's design did not cause the accident.

And another one bites the dust...

It's worth noting that this has been the third trial for this case. HCI has managed to drag it out since 1995 -- that's nine years over this issue that any reasonable judge would throw out in 5 minutes. How much does it cost to pay a lawyer for 9 years? Do the math. That's what HCI is up to. They don't care if they win, they just want to make it COST.

The country's largest firearms maker is not liable for the shooting of two police officers by a felon, a judge ruled. The officers sued the gun maker and a South Charleston pawnshop two years ago, arguing they should pay damages because a Ruger handgun sold at the shop had been used to shoot them in January 2001.

Berger said it would require "a real stretch" to make the gun maker responsible because the gun had originally been sold to an Ohio wholesaler. By the time it got to the pawnshop, it had changed hands four times.

So, let's sum up. Two police officers sued Ruger for manufacturing the handgun they were shot with. Here's the chain of possession, as far as I can tell (I'm making some assumptions about what the "four transactions" were before the pawn shop):

1. Manufactured by Ruger
2. Sold to a distributor
3. Sold to a gun store
4. Sold to a customer
5. Sold to a pawnshop
6. Sold illegally in a straw purchase to a felon, for which both the straw buyer and the real buyer have done time in prison
7. Sold illegally to a felon who is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

You can walk up that chain to the pawnshop and argue that they should have realized it was a straw purchase, but going back any further than that is insane. Before that transaction everything was legal. Certainly nothing Ruger could have done differently would have any effect on the outcome.

Well, it's very cheap for the Brady Bunch to work on them, since they seem to have found lawyers who will work for free. Manufacturers, of course, must pay their own costs to defend the case, and that can add up -- especially in a lopsided contest like this one, where the plaintiffs aren't being charged fees. And that handily explains the persistance of the cases despite consistently losing in court.

The NYTimes is alleging that there was "fraud" involved in the bandruptcy purchase of Bryco Arms. This is supposedly news because Bryco Arms went bankrupt while being sued by representives of Brandon Maxfield, who was shot and paralyzed at age 7 with a handgun manufactured by Bryco Arms. Brandon had willingly become a tool of the anti-gun lobby (which was supporting and funding his lawsuit) and was attempting to purchase the bankrupt company so that the guns could be destroyed.