|
Immunity For Gun Industry = Injustice for Victims of Gun Violence
What Is Special Legal Immunity for the Gun Industry?
The gun industry and the NRA have been pushing ill-conceived and reckless legislation in Congress and in state legislatures around the country that would provide special legal protection for the gun industry at the expense of innocent Americans who have been harmed by the dangerous and irresponsible actions of firearm manufacturers and sellers. The gun industry wants to receive special legal protection that no other industry in America enjoys - freeing gun manufacturers and dealers from accountability for negligent or dangerous conduct no matter how many people are injured or killed.
What Would the State Gun Industry Immunity Legislation Do?
While there are differences between each of the state bills pushed by the NRA and the gun industry, the immunity bills would generally give special legal immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers so that they would not be liable for damages when injury or death results from their failure to use reasonable care in their design and sale of guns, including damages resulting from their failure to implement reasonable, life-saving safety devices.
What Are Current State Laws on Gun Industry Immunity?
In 2002, California became the first state in the country to repeal a state law written by the NRA that had granted special legal immunity to the gun industry. California had passed an NRA-written immunity law 20 years ago, but repealed the law after courts held that it was so broad that it prevented a manufacturer from being held accountable for a massacre resulting from the gun manufacturer's negligent and dangerous conduct, which including advertising assault weapons as "resistant to fingerprints."
20 states do not grant special legal immunity to the gun industry. They treat the gun industry just like every other industry - with the same legal responsibilities and protections. These states have refused to enact NRA and gun industry sponsored laws that would grant broad, special legal protection to the gun industry: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
19 states prohibit city or county lawsuits that would hold the gun industry accountable for dangerous and irresponsible conduct. These states do allow individual lawsuits against the gun industry: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia.
11 states prohibit both city lawsuits and some individual lawsuits that would hold the gun industry accountable. Some of these state restrictions are narrow and would allow most lawsuits based on irresponsible or dangerous conduct: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota.
Why Are Cities Suing the Gun Industry?
33 cities and counties have filed suit against the gun industry for wrongful conduct that harmed citizens and resulted in large financial expenses to taxpayers. The lawsuits are a response to the terrible effect that gun violence has had on these cities and counties. In addition to the severe personal harm suffered by shooting victims and their families, gun violence has substantial economic costs. For example, it costs more than $14,000 to treat each child wounded by gunfire - enough to pay for a full year at a private college. The average cost of a gun-related crime may be as high as $268,000. The American College of Physicians estimates that, in the aggregate, the direct cost of firearms injuries is more than $4 billion per year, with $19 billion in additional harm such as lost potential earnings. Local governments pay millions of extra dollars for items like medical care, emergency services, police protection, courts, prisons, and school security because of wrongful conduct by the gun industry that resulted in injury and death.
What Have Courts Said about Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry?
In the last few years, major cases against the gun industry have met with these successes:
Bushmaster, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Pay $2.5 Million To D.C. Sniper Victims - In September 2004, the families of victims of the D.C. sniper shootings won a $2.5 million settlement from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the dealer who "lost" the snipers' assault rifle, along with at least 238 other guns, and Bushmaster, the assault weapon maker who negligently supplied Bull's Eye despite its disgraceful record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Further, as part of the settlement Bushmaster agreed to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that should prevent other criminals from obtaining guns - something Bushmaster had never done before. Gun Dealer Changes Practices, Compensates Wounded Police Officers - In June 2004, Ken McGuire and Dave Lemongello, former New Jersey police officers shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer, won a $1 million settlement. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other handguns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun trafficker. After the lawsuit, the dealer, as well as two other area pawnshops, agreed to implement safer practices to prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of ending large volume sales of handguns. These practices go beyond the law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors. Mother Of Slain Seven Year Old Ends Long Fight to Hold Reckless Dealer Accountable - In August 2004, Tennille Jefferson, whose seven-year-old son, Nafis, was unintentionally killed by another child with a trafficked gun, won a settlement from gun dealer Sauers Trading. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, amounted to $850,000. The handgun was one of many the dealer had sold to the trafficker, despite clear signs that the guns were headed straight to the underground market. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the right of Cincinnati to sue the gun industry for wrongful conduct in designing, marketing and distributing firearms in a way that ensures easy accessibility of firearms to criminals and children. The Illinois Court of Appeals upheld the right of Chicago to sue gun manufacturers and dealers for creating a public nuisance with their products, allowing the case to move forward. The New Mexico Supreme Court refused to review a strong Court of Appeals decision upholding the right of a 14 year old boy's parents to sue Saturday night special maker Bryco Arms after their son was unintentionally shot by friends because the Bryco handgun lacked an inexpensive mechanism that would have prevented firing when the magazine was removed and also lacked a load indicator that would have warned it was loaded.
What Has "Whistleblower" Robert Ricker Said about the Gun Industry?
Robert Ricker, who worked for decades within the gun industry as both an NRA lawyer and the head of the major handgun manufacturers' association, has filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of the California cities that have sued the gun industry, laying out a pattern of negligent and irresponsible conduct by the industry. Ricker states that the gun industry has long known that corrupt gun dealers have fueled the illegal market by providing guns to gun traffickers who were illegally reselling them on the street to criminals and that the gun industry deliberately avoided doing anything that would have stopped such conduct. Gun industry lawyers actively prevented discussion of steps the gun industry could take to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Furthermore, the NRA and the gun industry went to great lengths to silence anyone within the gun industry who urged a more responsible approach to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The industry's conduct resulted in a surge of gun sales - unfortunately many of those sales were to the criminal market.
What Types of Cases Would Be Prohibited by the Special Immunity Bills?
These are examples of the kind of gun violence victims who could lose their legal rights if Congress passes the federal gun industry immunity bill:
Greg Pavlides, a Canton, Ohio resident was rendered a paraplegic when he was shot by teenagers who were able to obtain their guns because of the negligence of the organizers of a gun show. The teens strolled around the show, picked up guns that were lying around on tables, totally unsecured, and walked away with them. A jury - and the Ohio Court of Appeals - agreed that the gun show's negligence was a cause of the shooting, and should pay damages to Mr. Pavlides. Sherialyn Byrdsong, who lost her husband, former college basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong, when he was shot and killed as he walked with their children in Illinois. The crime was committed by white supremacist Benjamin Smith who targeted minorities on a shooting spree. Since Smith was legally prohibited from buying guns from a retail dealer, he purchased his gun from a gun trafficker, who was supplied with an arsenal by an irresponsible gun dealer. The dealer sold the trafficker over 70 handguns in less than two years, almost all of them Saturday Night Specials commonly used by criminals. Bryco manufactured and sold the Saturday Night Special used by Smith without placing any reasonable conditions on its dealers to prevent large-volume sales to gun traffickers.
More generally, the special immunity bills would prohibit many legitimate negligence actions against gun manufacturers, gun sellers, or gun trade associations. Thus, when a gun dealer negligently sells a gun to a trafficker who supplies the gun used in a shooting, the victim could be denied her day in court and the dealer could be immunized. The bills also give immunity from liability to gun manufacturers and sellers in most product liability claims where shootings resulted from a gun maker's failure to include a reasonable safety device. For example, even if a party's use of a gun was foreseeable, if it was "not intended" the manufacturer would not face liability for deaths and injuries that resulted - even if those injuries could have been prevented by including child-proof devices or personalized technology that prevent unauthorized use of guns.
Why Would a Legislator Support Special Immunity for the Gun Industry?
The NRA and the gun industry are trying to buy special treatment through campaign contributions and deceptive soundbites. The gun lobby has been pushing their special interest legislation as "tort reform" that would prevent "frivolous" lawsuits. They act as though the gun industry were being treated unfairly, rather than simply being held to the same legal rules as every other industry in America, including being held accountable for wrongful, negligent and dangerous conduct. Many legislators are not aware that the courts have repeatedly determined that there has been specific, harmful misconduct by the gun industry and that there is nothing "frivolous" about t
he gun industry's irresponsible actions resulting in terrible tragedies. Legislators may not realize that absent special legal immunity, the gun industry would simply be treated like every other industry - with the same legal responsibilities and legal protections as everyone else.
Responding to NRA Arguments:
Lawsuits against the gun industry seek to wipe out centuries-old tort law principles and the legislation would simply reaffirm those principles.
Not true. On the contrary, it is the NRA's legislation that radically rewrites longstanding legal principles. Under current law, a manufacturer may be liable for failing to include feasible safety devices that prevent injuries caused by the foreseeable use or misuse of its products - even if they are "not intended." The NRA bills would wipe out those principles in firearm lawsuits and subject Americans to more unsafe firearms and injuries. The legislation only prevents claims against gun manufacturers.
Not true. The immunity bills generally immunize gun dealers, distributors and trade associations. If these bills become law, dealers who have negligently sold guns to traffickers would be immune from damages that result, even if a dealer sells 10, 50, or 100 guns to a purchaser who could only want that volume in order to illegally resell them. The legislation will not outlaw lawsuits brought by injured private citizens.
Not true. The bill pushed by the NRA in Congress, and some of the bills the NRA is advancing in the states, immunize the gun industry from most lawsuits brought by anyone - including private citizens. Individuals, as well as government entities, would lose their legal rights. The legislation would simply prevent the gun industry from being held liable because a criminal misused a gun.
Not true. The cases brought against gun dealers and manufacturers seek to impose liability for wrongful conduct those businesses engaged in, such as negligent sales or defective designs. They do not argue that anyone should be liable simply because a product they sold or made was used in crime. This bill is needed to weed out frivolous suits.
Not true. Not a single suit against the gun industry has been deemed frivolous; many have been successful. Even if someone were to file a frivolous lawsuit, the case would be dismissed and the lawyers could be sanctioned for abusing the legal system under current law. All suits against the gun industry have failed.
Not true. Across the country, juries and judges have found that gun manufacturers and gun dealers can be liable for their actions. This legislation would overrule these state court decisions, and lock the courthouse door to innocent victims in the future. Most states have enacted laws like this already.
Not true. The majority of states that have enacted laws giving some immunity to the gun industry have only prohibited suits brought by local governments. Twenty-four states have decided not to give the industry any immunity. The real goal of lawsuits filed against the gun industry is to bankrupt the gun industry and achieve handgun prohibition.
Not true. That is equivalent to saying that lawsuits alleging that cars should be made crashworthy or with air bags were attempts to ban automobiles. Like all tort suits, these cases attempt to compensate innocent victims and encourage responsible conduct. Lawsuits against the gun industry are an improper attempt to use courts for regulatory purposes.
Not true. Legislatures and administrative bodies regulate; courts adjudicate - they award money and may enter injunctions. If Congress is concerned that judges may "regulate," then they should enact laws that would limit the relief courts can give across the board, with respect to all products and businesses.
What Organizations Are Working to Defeat the Special Immunity Bills?
In addition to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, a wide range of health, education, religious, children's and other organizations have opposed the federal gun industry immunity legislation including:
Alliance for Justice
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Bar Association
American Federation of Teachers
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Consumer Federation of America
Doctors Against Handgun Injury
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Family Violence Prevention Fund
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker)
Mennonite Central Committee US, Washington Office
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of School Psychologists
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National League of Cities
National Network to End Domestic Violence
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Presbyterian Church USA, Washington Office
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Conference of Mayors
|
