Runaway Jury Book, Movie And the Senate Vote on S-659
March 10, 2004
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The Senate debate and vote on S-659, known by various names depending on your position on the legislation, was to begin today, Feb. 24.
Officially, S-659 is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Opponents have been using a variety of names, depending on their latest spin. For example, they have called it the gunmakers’ immunity bill, and more recently, the Bulls Eye protection bill, as they try to link the measure to the Tacoma, WA, store where the “Beltway snipers” rifle was allegedly stolen.
This is an important piece of legislation for both sides of the gun rights debate.
The firearms industry has been fighting a very costly defensive battle in federal and several state courts since some 30 cities and counties began filing lawsuits based on strange and unproven legal theories in late 1998. The industry is believed to have spent in the area of $10 million defending against these suits, and has won several outright, but is still facing appeals on others.
Brady Gang
These suits are at the heart of the anti-gun strategy because the courts are seen as the one route the Brady Gang can take to possible success when they have been failing to get state legislatures and Congress to pass the kind of legislation they want. The Brady Gang has followed the court strategy for several years in the hope of bankrupting the firearms industry out of existence.
They will do anything to defeat S-659 because they are still hoping for just one lawsuit in which the court will impose punitive sanctions on the entire gun industry—manufacturers, distributors, importers and dealers. That’s all it will take, just one court victory.
Gunowners have an important stake in this debate. If the anti-gunners manage to crush the industry in a court, the supply of new firearms products will suddenly dry up. No company will be able to afford the manufacture or sale of firearms and ammunition. Needless to say, there will be little or no research and development on new guns or cartridges. The lawsuits have already been keeping new product development down.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved its version of S-659 in the spring of 2003. Ever since that vote, proponents and Senate sponsors have been trying to get the measure to a vote. It was going to be last summer, then fall and now we are into 2004.
The original schedule called for S-659 to be debated over three days in early March. Then it was moved forward to this week. But at the same time, the stage was set for anti-gunners to bring out all the bills that have been bottled up throughout the Bush Administration and the GOP control of both the House and Senate to be offered as amendments to the liability bill.
Nothing in Washington, DC, is ever as simple as it seems. Consider for a moment that the anti-gunners will be offering amendments that will renew and extend the 1994 “assault weapon” ban which is due to expire this September, simply renew the ban, require background checks for all private sales at gun shows and matches, etc.
I’m sure there are other ones to be offered by the likes of Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Reed (D-RI). I’m sure there will be others, including some that have nothing to do with guns at all. The point is not to turn S-659 into an anti-gun bill, but to insert poison pills that will end up dividing the gun industry and the gun community.
For the anti-gunners, the strategy is simple: defeat S-659 and keep the door open for that one gun suit they want to win so desperately.
Popular Culture
It would be nice if we could hold up publication of this issue of Gun Week to see how it all turns out. Even if we stay glued to C-SPAN 2, we may not know the final answer. If the Senate passes anything other than a clean S-659, this saga could continue until election day with the two versions of the measure being batted back and forth between the Senate and House like a ping-pong ball. Based on comments from Capitol Hill, this issue is unlikely to be resolved in a conference committee.
All of which reminds me that this past weekend we rented the video of the 2003 movie, “Runaway Jury.”
The movie is loosely based on a 1996 book of the same name by John Grisham. The core story in the book and the movie are entirely different. The book is about a liability lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The movie revolves around a liability lawsuit against the gun industry.
There isn’t much legal or plot substance to the movie. It is loaded with the most simplistic anti-gun arguments, ignoring for example that multiple handgun sales must be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF is responsible for checking out multiple sales, not the firearms industry or retailer.
I suspect that the movie moguls bought Grisham’s tobacco-related bestseller when it first came out, but didn’t put it into production immediately. If they had, it might have stayed a tobacco industry story.
Time Lag
But between the time the book hit the newsstands and the time shooting began on the movie, a major settlement was reached between the tobacco industry and the cities and states that had sued. Hollywood then decided that the tobacco industry element of the story was old hat and switched to guns.
The problem is, they took an otherwise interesting book and dumbed it down to the level of a typical anti-gun newspaper reporter. I’m sure the folks at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence were delighted, if not directly responsible for the thin script of the movie.
The moviemakers did keep in a key element of the original story. This involved the morally reprehensible activities of the do-gooders on and off the jury who put the jury decision up for bidding to both sides in the lawsuit, sold it to one and double-crossed the gun industry lawyers who paid for a verdict they didn’t get.
I suppose you were supposed to feel that the jury-tamperers were doing it in a good cause. And the folks at the Brady Campaign and their former tobacco-lawsuit lawyers are so anxious to win one of those novel liability suits that they approved of the morally questionable methods used in either of the “Runaway Jury” stories.
Meanwhile, back on Capitol Hill the battle continues over protection of the lawful, licensed firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits by people who can’t find money enough in the thin pockets of criminals, and don’t care.
Maybe we’ll be able to report more specifically in the next issue. Of course, there is always the possibility of a “Runaway Senate.”
Return to Archive Index
