In a unanimous 33-page ruling that left the gun industry “disappointed” and anti-gunners delighted, the Indiana Supreme Court has cleared the way for the city of Gary to pursue its lawsuit against firearms manufacturers.
The opinion was written by Justice Theodore Boehm. This is only the second case in the country in which a state supreme court has allowed a city suit against the gun industry to move forward.
The Dec. 23 ruling was seen in different perspectives by opposing sides in the case, which could have national implications. Anti-gunners see the ruling as a significant victory “for cities seeking to hold gun manufacturers and sellers accountable for supplying guns to criminals,” according to a press release from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
On the other side, Lawrence Keane, vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), told Gun Week that this ruling adds fuel to the campaign for passage of S-659, the federal bill that would outlaw frivolous lawsuits. President Bush has already said he will sign the measure.
“This underscores the need for the Senate to act on S-659 as soon as possible,” Keane stated. “It would stop this lawsuit in terms of the manufacturers and distributors (being defendants), but the bill would not provide blanket immunity from lawsuits, as opponents imply. The law would permit the case to go ahead against the dealers, and it would not stop a lawsuit against a dealer or manufacturer that had violated the law.”
Keane said that the “notion that firearms in commerce cause crime is an absurd proposition.”
According to various press accounts, the Gary lawsuit was specifically exempted from legislation passed in Indiana in 2000 to bar such legal actions.
In its unanimous ruling, the state high court noted, “The essence of the city’s claim is that handgun manufacturers, distributors and dealers conduct their business in a manner that unreasonably interferes with public rights in the city of Gary and therefore have created a public nuisance.”
Named among the original defendants in the lawsuit are: Colt’s Manufacturing; Beretta USA; Smith & Wesson; Taurus; Hi-Point Firearms; Bryco Arms; B.L. Jennings Inc.; Phoenix Arms; Browning; Charter Arms; Davis Industries; Glock; Navegar, and Sturm Ruger plus five retailers, including Cash Indiana of Burns Harbor and Lake Station, Fetla Trading Co. and Blythe’s Sport Shop of Valparaiso, and Ameri-Pawn of Lake Station.
Undercover officers allegedly were able to purchase guns from dealers even after telling the clerks they were either convicted felons or under the legal age.
The original lawsuit was filed in August 1999 against 21 defendants, including NSSF, with support from the Brady Center, which has been involved in virtually all of the municipal anti-gun lawsuits. In December of that year, Fetla Trading paid the city $10,000 and agreed to stop selling firearms in exchange for being dropped from the lawsuit, according to The Indianapolis Star. Subsequently, NSSF was also dropped as a defendant.
According to The Star and Gary Post Tribune, the lawsuit was originally thrown out by Lake Superior Court in March 2001. The city alleged that the gun dealers had knowingly and illegally sold handguns to unqualified persons, including felons and gang members.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in September 2002 that the city could pursue its lawsuit against Cash Indiana, Ameri-Pawn and Blythe’s. The state supreme court heard arguments to reinstate the entire case in February 2003.
Keane, who has seen several similar lawsuits dismissed or dropped, observed that by allowing the city to move ahead with its legal action, “The citizens of Gary will be burdened with having to pay for this.”
He noted that of the original 33 municipal lawsuits, several have already failed or been withdrawn. Boston, Cincinnati, Newark and Jersey City all pulled out of their lawsuits. The original lawsuit, filed by the city of New Orleans, eventually was thrown out by the Louisiana Supreme Court. A separate industry lawsuit by the NAACP was rejected by a New York federal judge and advisory panel. Similar lawsuits have also been losers in several other cities.
Keane said other industries are watching the progress of these anti-gun lawsuits closely, and for good reason. If gunmakers can be held responsible for the illegal use of their products, who is next?
“Is a golf club manufacturer guilty in the death of Martha Moxley in Massachusetts,” Keane observed.
He said other industries, such as automobile manufacturers and alcohol distilleries and breweries, are also watching the course of events. They all support S-659, he said, “because they recognize the threat to legitimate businesses and industries that this strain of litigation represents.”
Critics of the anti-gun municipal lawsuits have long suggested that attorneys were “in it for the money,” having realized large settlements from the tobacco industry lawsuits of the last decade. Indeed, those lawsuits seem to have inspired some of the current gun lawsuits.
The results have been vastly different, however. Where tobacco companies settled, gunmakers have stood firm, insisting that their products are designed and manufactured safely, but they also perform as advertised. The gun industry position has always been that they are not responsible for the criminal conduct of end users.
Jerry Wehner, president of the Indiana State Rifle & Pistol Association, called the court ruling “completely ludicrous.”
He was quoted by The Star, noting, “Gary has a horrendous crime problem and they blame everybody else for it. They’re to blame. Guns aren’t inherently wrong. This is about money.”
Return to Archive Index