http://www.nolalive.com/news/t-p/fro...4290268230.xml
Ban on suing gun makers set to pass
But opponents say they'll give it their all
Tuesday May 06, 2003
By Bruce Alpert
Washington bureau
WASHINGTON -- Opponents of legislation to give gun manufacturers and dealers immunity from civil lawsuits are vowing to make a last-ditch stand to block a vote in the Senate.
But prospects for congressional passage and a presidential signature look so good that Cincinnati's city council last week dropped its year-old litigation seeking compensation for gun-related violence.
The Cincinnati lawsuit -- similar to litigation New Orleans was forced to withdraw two years ago after the Legislature adopted legislation similar to the immunity bill pending in the Senate -- sought to hold manufacturers responsible for gun-related crimes in the city.
Gun-control advocates say lawsuits are their best option for stopping the flow of cheap handguns into the hands of criminals and others who are a danger to society.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son was wounded by a gunman on a New York commuter train in 1993, said gun lawsuits are sometimes the only way to ensure that gun dealers and manufacturers act lawfully. She said Congress has imposed a rule that severely limits when Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents can inspect federally licensed gun stores, often leaving litigation and pretrial discovery as the only way to uncover wrongdoing.
"The gun industry should be subject to the same legal standards of conduct that govern every other industry," McCarthy said. "What makes this particular industry so special? We all know that it is the lobbyists."
Sponsors of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, including Louisiana Democratic Sens. John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, say that just as automobile manufacturers ought not to be held responsible when a drunken driver uses their product to take innocent lives, gun manufacturers should not be held liable when people use their products to kill or injure. The lawsuits, they say, would bankrupt the industry.
"I don't think you should hold gun manufacturers responsible for the wrongdoing of people who use the gun in the commission of a crime," said Landrieu, one of the bill's 52 Senate sponsors. Her support for the measure came last year during discussions with National Rifle Association representatives, who in return for her support agreed not to run the kind of opposition ads the group had aired in her first campaign.
Backers of the legislation need to pick up only eight additional votes to get the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster threatened by the measure's opponents, led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. The bill passed the House by a 285-140 vote, and President Bush has said he would sign it into law.
But passage of the bill isn't guaranteed, at least in the form passed by the House.
Landrieu and Breaux are among lawmakers who expressed concern last week about statements from some of the bill's opponents that the legislation would block lawsuits against not only manufacturers, but also dealers who don't take the required steps to keep guns from people who shouldn't have them. That group includes convicted felons, the mentally ill and illegal immigrants.
One of the lawsuits that opponents say could be affected was filed by the widow of a Washington, D.C., bus driver killed during last fall's sniper attacks. The attacks, in which 13 people were slain, led congressional leaders to postpone a vote on the immunity legislation late last year.
In her suit, Denise Johnson alleges that her husband was killed by a rifle obtained illegally by one of the two defendants from a Tacoma, Wash., gun store with a history of lax inventory controls.
"Gun sellers and manufacturers shouldn't be above the law," Johnson wrote in a recent column offered to newspapers by gun control supporters. "If any other product injured my husband and irresponsible sellers played a part, I would be able to bring a case in court."
Under the bill, gun manufacturers and gun dealers, as well as trade associations, would be given immunity, although there is a provision that denies protection against lawsuits brought against a seller for "negligent entrustment or negligence per se." That standard, opponents of the bill say, is so high that it would make most lawsuits, including Johnson's, difficult if not impossible to pursue.
Landrieu said she will review the bill and is open to an amendment that clarifies that a lawsuit could be brought against a dealer "not living up to the law and following rules for selling weapons, and keeping appropriate inventory controls."
Breaux said a manufacturer shouldn't be held liable if a person uses one of its weapons for criminal purposes, but "it's a different story" for a gun dealer who sells a gun "for instance to someone who is talking about going out and killing someone."
Will Hart, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation does not bar lawsuits from being filed against dealers who knowingly and willfully violate state and federal gun laws or who are clearly negligent.
"Although the bill prohibits filing certain lawsuits, the way it would actually work is that a plaintiff would file the lawsuit and the defendant would answer with a motion to dismiss -- which would have to be ruled on by a judge," Hart said. "So, in other words, a plaintiff would still actually get to make the argument that his or her case should be allowed to go forward as an exception to the ban."
Opponents said the bill would give gun manufacturers and dealers protection not available to any other business. Congress has approved exemptions from litigation in limited cases, such as for certain American Indian tribes and for the airlines whose planes were hijacked in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but this is significantly broader, said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Albany Law School who specializes in federal gun regulations.
But Rep. Chris John, D-Crowley, one of the chief sponsors of the legislation in the House, said it's not only the National Rifle Association and other groups pushing the law. He said communities dependent on gun-related jobs know that frivolous lawsuits threaten a legal industry worth billions of dollars to the national economy.
"Not only would continued frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers threaten the firearms industry, but it would have an enormous impact on many other businesses that are dependent on this industry," John said. "These lawsuits could have serious negative economic impact on the various hunting and sportsmen-related industries, which depend on safe, reliable gun manufacturing."
. . . . . . .
Bruce Alpert can be reached at
bruce.alpert@newhouse.com or (202) 383-7861.
Linear Mode
