January 10, 2001
Gun Issue Widely Covered During Closing Weeks of Year

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

Even before the murder of seven people at an Internet consulting firm in in Wakefield, MA, the day after Christmas, guns had been much in the news during the month of December.

Most of that news should have been encouraging to people in the firearms community as well as the gun industry.

For example, just before Christmas, an article in The Christian Science Monitor inspired by news of the settlement agreement between the city of Boston and Smith & Wesson stressed that despite all the lawsuits, gunmakers were not about to run up the white flag.

The Monitor is an avid proponent of more restrictive gun legislation and regulations, so they were not wearing their happy faces when the story by staff writer Kris Axtman made its appearance. However, they did report the facts.

“Lawsuits may have forced Big Tobacco to buckle—first one company and then, like dominoes, the rest. But the same see-you-in-court tactic does not seem to be working, at least so far, with the nation’s gun manufacturers,” the article began.

“True, Smith & Wesson, America’s largest gunmaker (sic), agreed nine months ago to make significant changes in the way it makes and markets its products. And the company settled a major lawsuit this week with Boston, one of dozens of cities across the US that have gone to court to try to force gunmakers to help pay for the costs of gun-related violence.

“But smaller gunmakers, heeding the advice of the National Rifle Association (NRA), have remained strong in their resolve to fight such lawsuits,” The Monitor continued.

“Other gun manufacturers are still doing things by the old rules, winning lawsuit after lawsuit,” says Robert Pugsley, professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. “The NRA has played a very major role,” he adds, taking “a hard line in front of what is likely to be intense pressure.”

Suits Dismissed
More than a dozen lawsuits are currently working their way through the courts. Six have already been dismissed, and several others have been blocked by state legislatures.

Smith & Wesson remains the only firm that has opted to settle a lawsuit.

Gun control advocates praise Smith & Wesson leading the way for other manufacturers.

But smaller manufacturers don’t appear willing to follow that lead. And the NRA has taken an active role in ensuring similar deals aren’t cut, experts say.

The gunmaker itself is moving to diversify (firearms now make up 40% of its sales), and hopes to settle other city lawsuits quickly. While each city must negotiate its own deal with Smith & Wesson, the firm hopes the December agreement with Boston will be used as a template.

If other evidence that the see-you-in-court approach is not working for the anti-gunners, more of the municipal suits are being thrown out of court for various reasons. In last week’s issue of Gun Week, we reported that the suit filed by Camden County, NJ, had been dismissed for lack of standing and relevance for the 11 gun manufacturers that had moved for dismissal.

This week, I am pleased to report here that Philadelphia’s suit against the gun industry was also dismissed on Dec. 20. US District Judge Berle M. Schiller said the city’s suit was negated by a 1995 state law that stripped municipalities of the power to either regulate or sue gunmakers. In Pennsylvania the power to regulate firearms lies exclusively with the state legislature.

Philadelphia may yet appeal Schiller’s ruling just as other cities have appealed or plan to appeal the rulings of other judges that have totally or partially dismissed similar lawsuits.

The court battle is one of attrition and while the anti-gunners have not done well so far, they are persistent. They keep hoping for just one clear victory—that’s all they need. And in the meanwhile, the cost of defending against these extortunate suits is taking its toll on the industry—and consumers as well.

The price sheets distributed to dealers with product literature at the Jan. 11-14 SHOT Show in New Orleans will reflect some of the cost of the litigation.

Government Reports
What is significant in The Christian Science Monitor story is that an avid media ally of the gun-grabbers is very cognizant of the resolve of the firearms industry to fight back.

A more neutral information source, The Wall Street Journal, also weighed in on the gun issue in December, and, once again, it was not encouraging news for the anti-gunners. Indeed, it is news Handgun Control Inc. and the Violence Policy Center had hoped to conceal or at least spin to their advantage.

The Journal article by Gary Fields that appeared on Dec. 11 introduced some significant data to the ongoing debate over American firearms policy by connecting two different government reports.

“In a little-noticed report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research arm of the Justice Department, said that gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33% from 1993 to 1997,” Fields noted. “During the same time, the number of firearms in circulation in the US rose nearly 10%, according to statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.”

The Journal headline writers called it a “gun conundrum.” Certainly these findings undercut the claim of anti-gunners that the “proliferation” of guns causes crime.

Fields quotes James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, as saying:

“We have more guns than we’ve ever had, and the crime rate and the gun-crime rate are dropping. That tells me that what is going on can’t just be the prevalence of guns.”

Fields’ article quotes other sources and gives the anti-gunners a chance to put their spin on the facts. But the report makes it clear that people seeking solutions to high rates of murder and mayhem should be looking at other causes more than guns.

The national scene isn’t the only stage where the December 2000 gun drama has been playing.

The Michigan legislature has passed a significant reform on that state’s concealed carry law, one that brings another state into the right-to-carry majority. The governor has said he will sign the measure despite claims by the anti-gunners that passage of the bill was a “sneak attack” after the election.

In Ohio, the long-simmering debate over right to carry is also heating up again. The Columbus Dispatch has run several stories in December which suggest that a deal is in the works in which Gov. Bob Taft would get a safe-storage type measure if he agrees to sign a right-to-carry bill.

Ohio is one of a half-dozen states in which there is no statewide law allowing concealed carry. The state’s constitution guarantees a right to bear arms but state laws prohibit such defensive carry.

The Dispatch suggests that a deal is being worked out in the state capital on one day, followed by reports that no such deal is imminent. At this point, however, it seems very likely that the issue will get greater consideration in the state legislature in 2001.

New Year Celebrations
Speaking of the New Year, which is just four days away as this column is being written, it appears that the practice of shooting guns in the air at midnight on Dec. 31 is not limited to some US cities, such as Detroit, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

According to Reuters news service, Guatemalan police are calling on revelers not to fire pistols into the air this year, in a bid to prevent accidental deaths.

In working-class neighborhoods in the capital and other Guatemalan cities, mostly illegal pistol owners take advantage of fireworks explosions over the festive season to empty their weapons skyward undetected.

Which allows me to end this column with best wishes for the New Year and a warning to play it safe.