by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

A unanimous 7-0 ruling by New York state’s highest court that gun manufacturers can’t be held liable for shooting deaths and injuries because of their marketing practices is certain to have an impact on dozens of similar cases nationwide, especially the federal case of Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, that precipitated the court’s ruling.

Not many months ago, the anti-gunners were pointing to the Hamilton decision in a federal district court in Brooklyn as the Yellow Brick Road to an anti-gun OZ. The New York court’s decision is more than a mere bump in the road, as can be seen from the detailed legal analysis in this issue (click here to view analysis.)

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) termed the decision “a major defeat for anti-firearms activists.” The National Rifle Association said “anti-gun extremists suffered a monumental judicial defeat.”

The Court of Appeals decision on April 26 almost certainly dooms the Hamilton case where a $4 million federal court award had been decided for a New York City man who was left permanently disabled at age 15 when he was shot by a friend in 1994.

Gun manufacturers said the unanimous decision will set an example for judges across the country hearing about three dozen similar cases.

“It’s an important decision, both from the standpoint of New York state law and from the standpoint of national litigation raising similar issues,” said attorney Lawrence Greenwald, who represented Beretta USA and American Arms.

“We are extremely gratified by today’s ruling because the court recognized that by complying with the extensive statutory and regulatory scheme established by Congress and administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), federally licensed firearms manufacturers distribute and sell their lawful products in a safe and responsible manner and help to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals,” said Robert T. Defay, president and CEO of NSSF.

“Once again, the courts have determined that lawsuits against the firearms industry for the criminal misdeeds of individuals are without merit,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which is suing the US Conference of Mayors and two dozen individual mayors over similar legal actions against the industry and firearms owners.

“…more importantly,” Gottlieb continued, “it is a victory for the millions of law-abiding gunowners, whose firearm civil rights have been threatened from the beginning by such legal actions.”

The comments of pro-Second Amendment leaders, however, apparently will not discourage the anti-gunners. Lawyers for shooting victims and their supporting anti-gun organizations said the decision presents attorneys with a blueprint on how to successfully pursue other cases.

“We didn’t reach the destination today, but the decision gives us guidance how to get there,” said lawyer Marc Elovitz, who represented Stephen Fox of the New York City and his family. “It was a road map and not a dead end.”

Fox and the relatives of six people killed by handguns won a jury verdict in 1999. The federal appeals court reviewing the verdicts asked the New York court to certify two key points of state law.

Writing for the court, Judge Richard Wesley said lawyers for the gunshot victims alluded to “broad” and “general” ways that gun manufacturers are liable for handgun injuries, but they failed to show specifically how their sales and marketing led to their guns getting into the wrong hands.

A “more tangible” direct link is needed to show how the gunmakers contributed to the injuries of gunshot victims and that the manufacturers “were realistically in a position to prevent the wrongs,” Wesley wrote. He also ruled out used of a “market share” theory in the case.

Click here for an in depth analysis of the NY Court Decision by Jerold E. Levine