by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

Another major setback in the saga of municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry was dealt to the city of Gary, IN, on Jan. 12 when the Lake County Superior Court dismissed the city’s case against 18 manufacturers as unconstitutional.

However, the city has amended its lawsuit, and re-filed within a statutory 10-day period, revising its demands based largely on the same theories advanced in the initial action, but also partly on concessions Smith & Wesson made to the Clinton White House last year, Gun Week has learned.

Lake County Superior Court Judge James J. Richards said the lawsuit was an attempt by the city to “regulate the interstate commerce in firearms in violation of the United States Constitution.” His 13-page decision is available at the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s website: www.nssf.org.

Attorney James B. Meyer, representing the city, told Gun Week that the city has filed an amended complaint that “added some language in regard to more specific recitation of the steps manufacturers could take in regard to reasonable care in the manufacture and sale of their products.”

Specifically, Meyer, a private attorney and partner in the law firm of Meyer & Godshalk, said the new complaint “incorporates items...in the Smith & Wesson agreement with the White House.”

Early in the case, the city had unilaterally filed a copy of a proposed settlement agreement with S&W, which was never signed by the gun company. S&W objected, and asked that the filing be stricken from the record, which was later upheld in court.

NSSF President Robert Delfay was pleased with the ruling.

“(The decision) obviously underscores the fact that there is no basis in law, for these actions,” he said. “They are politically motivated. They’re not an attempt to correct any sort of criminal conduct but rather they are an attempt on the part of a handful of mayors to feather their political nests at the expense of a legitimate industry.”

In having its case tossed out of court, Gary joins a growing list of cities that have lost in their attempts to sue the firearms industry. Judgments have also gone against Cincinnati, OH, Bridgeport, CT, Miami-Dade County, FL, Chicago, IL, Camden County, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA. Cases are still pending in nearly two dozen other cities.

In his strongly-worded opinion, Richards noted, “Defendants suggest that the city’s lawsuit, in violation of the Commerce Clause, seeks to regulate the lawful conduct of the defendants outside Gary’s borders, in their production, distribution and sales practices. As such, the city’s proposed claim and relief inevitably have an unconstitutional and extraterritorial effect. Such a violation cannot stand.”

Defendants in the case included S&W, Beretta, Browning, Charter Arms, Savage, Taurus, Intratec, Jennings, Sturm Ruger, Glock, Harrington & Richardson, SIGArms and others, including six retailers and one distributor.

Richards, alluding to the Cincinnati case, noted that the lawsuit had “failed to connect a specific defendant, product and defect to any specific injury to the city.”

In a related development, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed on Jan. 17 to hear Cincinnati’s appeal of its case, which was tossed out last year by an appellate court.

Continuing his criticism of Gary’s case, Richards also specified, “At most, the city alleges that the manufacturers stand at the beginning of a chain of events which include multiple wrongful acts by others, which the manufacturers have no duty to control.”

Perhaps in his most stinging rebuke, Richards noted, “The city misstates Indiana law, claiming that defendants owe a duty of care to the city, because harm to the city caused by the criminal misuse of firearms is foreseeable.”