Plaintiffs in a California lawsuit against the gun industry showed their desperation recently in that case by releasing an affidavit, by ex-industry lobbyist Robert Ricker, to The New York Times in a way that was “clearly done so (the industry) would not be able to respond” and “so there would not be any balance.”
Ricker’s affidavit, a would-be bombshell that accuses the gun industry of knowingly allowing firearms to be sold to criminals by “corrupt dealers” while remaining silent “for fear of legal liability,” was almost immediately posted on the website of the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence. It was just as quickly dismissed as lots of flash with not much substance by various industry officials.
Plaintiffs in the case, scheduled to go to trial in April in San Diego County Superior Court, are using the affidavit as a cornerstone in their response to an industry motion seeking summary judgment. The Brady Center is supporting the lawsuit.
Ricker is a former executive director and lobbyist for the now-defunct American Shooting Sports Council (ASSC), which is a defendant in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs are a dozen California cities and counties, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Ricker has a long history of representing pro-gun interests. A one-time attorney for the National Rifle Association (NRA), he also once worked for the Gun Owners of California, worked in the California legislature, and was also a lobbyist in California for several years, including a period when he worked for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
Since leaving the ASSC in mid-1999 at the same time it was being dissolved and virtually absorbed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Ricker has worked as a consultant for various interest groups. Immediately after ASSC’s demise, he headed a group called the National Coalition of Firearms Retailers. In February 1999, he was honored as the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month.
Said long-time associate Richard Feldman, Ricker’s one-time boss at ASSC: “He’s not some anti, though I think he’s gone over to the ‘dark side’ a little.”
The affidavit, said Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the NSSF, is a compilation of accusations and “vague generalities” but there are no factual specifics. Though Keane was contacted by The Times for an opportunity to respond, he told Gun Week that the call came late in the day and that he could not have commented because he had not yet seen Ricker’s affidavit. He finally got a copy the day that The Times story appeared.
“Mr. Ricker,” said Keane, “is making statements or allegations that are without basis. The affidavit lacks any factual specificity.”
However, David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Denver, CO, and a prominent pro-gun attorney and author, disagreed.
“I think it’s a devastating affidavit,” he said, “and it significantly improves the chances that the California case gets to trial instead of getting dismissed. I’m not saying it is going to win the case for (the plaintiffs), but is it a major development for the gun prohibition lawyers? Yes, no question about it.”
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, recalling Ricker’s time as his lobbyist in California, told Gun Week, “In all the time that he lobbied for us, he never once said to me that the industry does any of this stuff. He made constant reports to me. He never called to my attention one manufacturer who knew there were straw man sales. He never said any of those things to me.”
Gottlieb said he would be happy to submit that information in an affidavit to the NSSF.
The Times report, by Fox Butterfield, was timed to suggest to readers that there is a “smoking gun” regarding industry culpability for illegal gun sales to criminals, when no such link factually exists, Keane contended.
“It is unfortunate,” he observed, “that the journalist at The New York Times would fall prey to such a transparent trick.”
Gun Week obtained a copy of Ricker’s 18-page affidavit. Throughout the document, Ricker alleges repeatedly that the industry has long been aware that a small number of licensed dealers are responsible for selling firearms illegally to criminals, but failed to do anything about it.
“Contrary to the allegations of Mr. Ricker,” Keane told Gun Week, “the city of Boston, when it dismissed its lawsuit against the industry, after reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of industry documents and taking depositions of corporate officials, (acknowledged) that in fact the industry has a long standing commitment to reducing accidents and working cooperatively with law enforcement to combat illegal distribution of firearms to the black market.”
He said the Brady Center is aware of various NSSF and industry programs aimed at preventing gun mishaps, and educating retailers about how to prevent illegal “straw man” purchases, but “they choose to ignore that.”
“Mr. Ricker’s comments are unfounded,” he said.
James Chambers, executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, and NSSF vice president for Governmental Relations, agreed. He told Gun Week that Ricker’s affidavit is “irresponsible.”
“I have seen absolutely nothing like what Ricker says in this affidavit, or the statements he made to Butterfield in The New York Times,” Chambers commented.
He suggested that Butterfield’s coverage of gun issues in The New York Times has not been accurate, an opinion that extends to Butterfield’s report on Ricker’s affidavit.
Chambers asserted, “He (Butterfield) tends to overlook a lot of facts. He does very shallow research.”
While the affidavit made for a provocative headline and story, Chambers predicted that the actual case will not be successful. He also said it will cause little more than a ripple on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are dealing with an impending war with Iraq, and the struggling post-Clinton economy.
Chambers called Ricker’s allegations “not true, it’s really irrelevant to what’s going on.”
Feldman, reflecting on Ricker’s apparent turn to what he called “the dark side,” told Gun Week that when the industry dissolved ASSC, Ricker was literally cast adrift. This had to do with industry anger over Ricker’s alleged overtures to the Clinton White House on issues dealing with gun safety and children. He suggested that Ricker may have felt pushed to the other side of the gun debate.
That much is indicated by the final paragraphs in Ricker’s affidavit, in which he alleges that his career at ASSC was undone by pressure from officials at NSSF and the NRA. He alludes to one memo, written by then-NSSF President Robert Delfay, called “Reigning (sic) in Ricker.”
“You don’t let somebody like Bob Ricker go away mad,” Feldman observed.
Yet, Ricker’s positions on the gun issue gave cause for others in the industry to get mad at him. He supported legislation to raise the age for handgun possession from 18 to 21 (a position he said had been approved by the board of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Foundation, a sub-group of NSSF). He also told Gun Week that he supported the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits many Americans with even misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, from owning firearms or even having ammunition in their possession. And there were his links to the Clinton White House, which infuriated others in the gun industry.
He would neither confirm nor deny reports that he has also consulted with the anti-gun Americans for Gun Safety. He simply stated that he would not disclose his list of clients.
Feldman was tipped by Ricker in advance about The Times’ latest gun story, and he had read excerpts from Ricker’s affidavit. He suggested there is nothing startling or particularly revealing in the document. As for gun industry executives knowing that firearms were finding their way into criminal hands, Feldman was matter-of-fact: “If you are an American and you read newspapers and watch television, how could you not know that guns are being misused in America? There is nothing special or unique about someone in the gun industry knowing this. We know criminals obtain our products and frequently misuse them, giving gunowners a black eye.
“What the other side says,” he continued, “is ‘Why doesn’t industry do a better job of policing ourselves?’ The important question is, ‘Do you really want industry in the role of law enforcement?’ ”
Likewise, SAAMI’s Chambers observed, “We have been told by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that we, the industry, are not enforcers of the law, they are, and we ought to stick to our end of the business, and they should stick to theirs.”
Asked why he submitted the affidavit, Ricker said he had a choice of either doing that or submitting to a deposition.
Regarding that, CCRKBA’s Gottlieb noted, “If I were the attorney for the anti-gun plaintiff, the only way I would give up deposing someone like Bob Ricker, and not be able to ask follow-up questions, and take an affidavit in place of a deposition would be if I got an affidavit that was written to my specifications.”
Return to Archive Index