California Cities’ Gun Suits Nixed on Appeal
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Another devastating blow to anti-gunners was delivered Feb. 10 when the California Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District upheld an earlier dismissal of lawsuits filed against gunmakers by Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Sacramento, Compton, Inglewood, and West Hollywood, and the counties of San Mateo and Alameda.
The court ruled unanimously that San Diego County Superior Court Judge Vincent P. DiFiglia had properly thrown out the lawsuits in March 2003.
Writing for the appeals court, Judge James Marchiano stated, “The only business practice the defendants in this case have engaged in is marketing their products in a lawful manner to federally licensed dealers.” He further noted, “(T)here is no causal connection between any conduct of the defendants and any incident of illegal acquisition of firearms or criminal acts or accidental injury by a firearm. Defendants manufacture guns according to federal law and guidelines.”
Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association that is one of the defendants in the lawsuit, called the ruling a “definitive victory for our industry and the latest in a continuing string of major setbacks for anti-gun groups led by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.”
The Brady Center has been involved in dozens of lawsuits filed around the country by municipalities against the gun industry. This string of lawsuits dates back to 1999, and fighting them has cost the firearms industry an estimated $200 million.
That in mind, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, issued a statement following the appeals court ruling.
“These lawsuits aren’t about public safety, protecting children or stopping crime, and they never have been,” Gottlieb stated. “These lawsuits have been pushed solely in an effort to bully and bankrupt the firearms industry, by extremist organizations and half-baked politicians who have been unable to push their brand of social engineering through Congress and the legislatures, so they turned to the courts.”
Considering the track record of these lawsuits, that was the wrong course to take.
“Their junk-lawsuit scheme,” said Keane of the anti-gunners’ strategy, “based on utterly discredited legal theories, has so far failed in its attempt to destroy and bankrupt a responsible and law-abiding industry by blaming us for the actions of criminals.”
Among the contentions in these lawsuits—including the California action—is that gunmakers market their firearms deliberately to criminals, and that manufacturers, dealers and distributors engage in business practices that put guns into the hands of criminals.
But the appeals court noted, “No evidence in this case hints that any of the manufacturer defendants provided weapons to criminals or failed to properly record sales or did any of the other acts that plaintiffs characterize as high-risk business practices. They did not control the wrongful acts or encourage others to engage in questionable acts. Neither did they change their business practices to avoid proposed regulations or advise retailers on ways to circumvent the law. The record in this case shows that the only business practice that these defendants engage in is the manufacture and sale of firearms to dealers that are licensed as such by the federal government. Plaintiffs have cited no cases finding a manufacturer has engaged in an unfair practice solely by legally selling a non-defective product based on actions taken by entities further along the chain of distribution. Even plaintiffs’ experts could not present an evidentiary link between the manufacturer of a firearm and a retail gun dealer who sold guns that ended up in criminal circumstances.”
The lawsuit also alleged that the marketing practices that got firearms into the community amounted to a “public nuisance.” To that charge, the court responded, “Plaintiffs’ public nuisance claim fails for lack of any evidence of causation. Their complaint attempts to reach too far back in the chain of distribution where it targets the manufacturer of a legal, non-defective product that lawfully distributes its product only to those buyers licensed by the federal government.”
The ruling brought a pointed reaction from Stephen L. Sanetti, president and general counsel at Sturm, Ruger.
“It should be apparent by now,” Sanetti said, “that after almost seven years of intensive and costly litigation which has burdened both taxpayers and industry alike, the time has to come for plaintiffs to abandon their adversarial position against our industry, particularly at a time when national security is at stake.”
Gottlieb concurred, noting, “There could be no greater proof that Congress needs to pass legislation against these lawsuits than the lawsuits, themselves, and their dismissal rate. We are hardly surprised that the unanimous appeals court ruling . . . found that the only business practice the defendants in this case have engaged in is marketing their products in a lawful manner to federally licensed dealers.
“This is clearly one more in a series of dismissals of a frivolous legal action against a highly-regulated industry,” said Gottlieb.
Sanetti noted, “Unfortunately, at the behest of zealous agenda-driven organizations, some mayors seem determined to continue such litigation abuse despite prior court rulings. The only sure way to finally stop this wasteful litigation is swift enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as part of needed tort law reform to be considered by Congress.”
“Court after court has found our responsible sales and marketing practices in this heavily-regulated industry to be appropriate and legally correct. Violent crime is at a 20 year low, and firearms accidents are at an all-time low, due at least in part on many voluntary efforts of the responsible firearms industry,” he continued.
Legislation outlawing so-called “junk lawsuits” against the industry is once again being considered by Congress. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which President Bush said last year he would sign, is sponsored by Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) in the House and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) in the Senate, and co-sponsored by many of their colleagues.
Return to Archive Index