quote:PRINGFIELD, Ill., Nov. 18 -- The Illinois Supreme Court threw out two lawsuits accusing gunmakers of knowingly letting weapons fall into the hands of gang members and other criminals, in a ruling Thursday that the manufacturers cannot legally be blamed for street violence.
Both rulings were unanimous, but five of the seven justices were so disturbed by allegations raised in the case that they wrote a separate opinion urging the state legislature to create tougher gun regulations.
The lawsuits, filed by the city of Chicago and victims of shootings, claimed the defendants created a public nuisance by pouring guns into the Chicago area that are used to kill.
"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance," the court said. "It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance."
The city sought $433 million, the amount it claims it paid in law enforcement and emergency medical treatment for gun violence over four years. The families were seeking unspecified damages.
Similar lawsuits had been filed around the country. An earlier wave of product-liability lawsuits -- alleging that guns are unreasonably dangerous -- failed.
I'm glad this attempt to craft public policy in the courts instead of the legislature failed. The expansion of liability into such new, uncharted waters is exactly the kind of decision that needs to be made by elected legislatures.
posted
right boris, i know i've been suffering from lack of laws over here. Freaking slackers, get back to work.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh - using lawsuits to force change is hardly a new occurence.
It's just another battle tactic - "make the act of undertaking operations so expensive in terms of men, material, resources or any combination thereof that the enemy ceases attempting operations."
Guerrilla fighters employ this strategy quite a bit - and you can argue it's the basis for almost any military strategy.
However, unlike the lawsuits against the tobacco companies, there wasn't a smoking gun clearly illustrating fault.
posted
Actually, that is not entirely true. There are a number of manufacturers whose marketing strategy appears to be aimed at inner-city gangs. They manufacture poor quality very cheap handguns in massive quantities. Sure, it's not a slam dunk but for the manufacturers to argue that they don't know who is buying their products is a bit disengenuous.
What the states have trouble with is that these guns aren't the only ones used by the gangs, and, of course, the gangs aren't the only ones buying these guns.
Then, for all manufacturers, thera are the issues of whethe or not they've done everything reasonable tha they can in order to ensure that the gun is only fired by the owner. Some have settled on built-in locks, the key to which is the same for every gun they make. Others have done nothing. There are a few high-end guns that supposedly recognize the hand of their owner once it is programmed into memory. But the industry has argued successfully, so far, that it doesn't have any responsibility over how their product is used even if there might be reasonably-priced, effective ways to prevent a few of the obvious misuses (like when a weapon is stolen or a small child gets ahold of it).
In truth, the gun's owner (the consumer) bears the vast majority (if not all) of the responsibility for how the weapon is used, how accessible it is to kids or others who don't know how to handle it safely, and how securely it is kept from thieves.
Anyway, I thought I'd heard of a few suits where the manufacturers of low-end arms had been successfully sued. Maybe I'm mistaken. I suspect some smart lawyer will figure out a way to sue some of the manufacturers, if it hasn't happened already somewhere in the U.S.
By the way, Dag, even when a law is passed, isn't it the case that until there is a legal precedent regarding it's enforcement that we really don't know the full extent to which it will be applied?
I guess you're saying that we need that law first, and I agree. But that seems like it will still leave the court with a major role in deciding on the practical expression of that law in society.
I think that kind of blurs the line a bit. I mean, courts are still, in a sense, 'making' legislation by interpreting what laws are on the books. Aren't they?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, certainly courts have a major role in interpretation, and in practice this has a great effect on the the actual effects of the law.
However, there's a huge difference between interpreting a law assigning liability to manufacturers for guns used in crimes and actually creating that liability out of whole cloth. Especially when it's the government doing it - this makes it a blatant attempt to circumvent the prefered law-making process. Ideally, the courts perform a gap-filling function with the intent of implementing the policies defined by the legislature.
I had a huge problem with the tobacco lawsuit by the states, for a couple of reasons. First, the lawsuits were created by private lawyers seeking business, and pitched to the states like someone pitches an idea for a new computer system. Second, the damages sought were primarily for the cost incurred by the government in providing medical care for smokers. The problem with this theory is that the cost of such care was a voluntary burden taken on by the government using the legislative process. The states had it within their power to tax the tobacco companies. They could have taxed them retroactively, even, although it's not clear how far back they could have gone. Instead, they chose to use a politically non-accountable method of taxation, one that is horribly cost inefficient when the private attorney fees are taken into account.
It's not that I have sympathy for the tobacco companies, but rather that I hate the idea of fiscal policy being made by non-political branches.
posted
I totally agree. I thought that whole episode was primarily an enrichment program for lawyers. Once it started, it was also clear that states would jump on board because it was a way to get a bunch of money "off the books." Florida showed remarkable fiscal discipline in using the money to offset health care costs for a few weeks, if I recall correctly.
Now I think they're treating it as part of the general fund, though I could be wrong. Maybe they put it into the schools so they could cut that budget again.
posted
Virginia hasn't done any better - almost nothing went to anti-smoking for a few years, then a lot of it went to some very stupid television ads with almost no educational value.
posted
I mentioned the lawsuits regarding tobacco companies concealing or blocking evidence that smoking causes substantial health issues.
By comparison, while some gun manufacturers may market their product to gangs or to consumers on the lower end of the economic scale, they aren't concealing facts about their product, nor are they misleading the public regarding the inherent safety issues of the product.
You may not care for the advertising campaign (you in a generic, public-at-large sense), but it's hardly illegal.
The suits regarding damages incurred because of the tobacco companies' hiding the truth has a reasonable and logical consequence of their criminal action.
However, suing gun manufacturers for reckless and criminal use of their product would be like suing Ford because the drunk who hit my car was using one of their products in the commission of his criminal act.
If, however, a gun manufacturer ignored certain laws and knowingly sold weapons illegally or to unauthorized consumers...that would be another issue entirely.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
