Posted on 08/05/2005 10:53:35 AM PDT by neverdem
How a misguided defense of gun rights undermines a free society
The most commonly heard complaint about the National Rifle Association is that it's run by extremists who are militantly opposed to all forms of gun control and do not represent the views of the average gun owner. The second most common complaint is that the NRA is a namby-pamby, inside-the-Beltway lobby that readily compromises principle for political advantage.
There is some truth to both of these seemingly contradictory portraits. The NRA's single-minded determination to defend its own understanding of the right to keep and bear arms can lead it to chip away at other pillars of a free society.
Consider the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which has been one of the NRA's top priorities for several years and was recently approved by the Senate. This bill, which the House is expected to approve in the fall and President Bush has promised to sign, protects gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits that blame them for the harm caused by people who use firearms to commit crimes.
The NRA is correct that such lawsuits represent an unjust and dangerous expansion of tort law, potentially threatening any industry that sells products used by criminals. It is also correct that gun litigation based on "public nuisance" or "negligent distribution" theories, if successful, could bankrupt the industry, which would make it difficult for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
To avoid the risk of ruinous judgments, gun makers might agree to new restrictions on how they advertise, promote, and sell their products, or such restrictions could be imposed by courts after trial. In that event, one state court could in effect set gun control policy for the entire country, infringing on Second Amendment rights and circumventing state legislatures and Congress, contrary to the system of government established by the Constitution.
Yet these threats to constitutional rights and principles, which have to be weighed against the clear intrusion on state sovereignty represented by the federalization of tort law, remain almost entirely theoretical. Not one of the newfangled gun lawsuits has resulted in a jury award so far, and 33 states have passed laws pre-empting them. Of more than 30 gun lawsuits filed by state and local governments since 1998, all but a few have been nullified by such laws or dismissed by state courts that recognized them as groundless.
Given this track record, the strongest justification the NRA can offer for immediate congressional intervention is that the lawsuits are costing a small industry hundreds of millions of dollars in legal expenses it can ill afford. That may be an argument for demanding that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which has helped file most of these suits, reimburse the targets of their frivolous litigation. But it's not a compelling argument for a law that violates the separation of powers between the states and the federal government by dictating outcomes in state civil actions.
In the case of lawsuit pre-emption, the NRA at least has some plausible, though ultimately unconvincing, constitutional arguments on its side. Not so with its recently announced boycott of ConocoPhillips.
The NRA launched the boycott in retaliation for the energy company's participation in a federal lawsuit challenging a new Oklahoma law that prohibits companies from banning guns in vehicles parked on their property. The Oklahoma law was passed in response to the firing of 12 employees at a Weyerhaeuser paper mill after guns were discovered in their cars during a sweep with drug-sniffing dogs.
If the NRA were simply objecting to ConocoPhillips' policy of barring guns from its parking lots, I would have no problem with the boycott. Instead, the NRA is objecting to the company's defense of its right to determine the gun policy on its own property. "We're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," declares NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
That statement makes no sense, since the Second Amendment is a restraint on government. The Second Amendment does not mean a private employer has to welcome guns in its parking lot, any more than the First Amendment means I have a right to give speeches in your living room.
LaPierre insists that "you can't say you support Second Amendment freedoms, then turn around and support anti-Second Amendment companies." I think you can, if you support property rights and understand what the Second Amendment really means.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.
JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?
Who doesn't believe in private property rights except the left. I'm more concerned about the mandatory locks and what's armor piercing ammo.
As far as ConocoPhillips, I read that the original company had a new policy that had not yet been announced when they conducted this health and welfare inspection on the first day of hunting season, IIRC. I would appreciate any corrections about that incident.
As far as the federalization of tort law, it's a regretable but necessary tactic caused by the trial lawyers and activist judges.
What a stupid -- or willfully corrupt -- thing to say. The COST of successfully defending against such a suit can ruin you, despite the verdict. Sullum clearly doesn't have a problem with this as long as the ruined company makes guns.
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
If you are going to try and push the issue of property Rights to include the otherwise legal contents of my conveyance, then you have pushed too far. Unless my employer wants to buy me a commuter vehicle? I'd be up for that and they could rightfully regulate the otherwise legal contents.
Love loser pays.
I will gladly concede that the author is correct on this point, but only under one condition: If a Federal law "protecting" the gun industry violates the separation of powers between the states and the Federal government, then by the same token states and municipalities have no legal standing to file a lawsuit against a company that manufactures its products in another state.
Exactly, my .300 Win. Mag. handloaded to about 3100 fps at the muzzle will penetrate many things made of steel.
Somebody wrote ".22 long" could qualify, IIRC. I believe they meant .22 long rifle. I'm not so sure about that except .22 Stingers, etc. might do the trick.
As far as the mandate that locks be sold with handguns, I didn't think it was a big deal at first. Then someone made the point that the use of seatbelts was originally voluntary. Look what came to pass.
And I really like my 7mm remington mag, come hunting season, or even just target plinking. But it'll shoot through a ballistic vest like it isn't there, like most other rifles will.
-------
The right to keep and bear arms created a free society,
The right to keep and bear arms protected a free society,
The right to keep and bear arms defended a free society,
A free society has a duty to defend and protect the right to keep and bear arms.
What is Reason, and who is Jacob Sullum? Has he ever held a firearm?
I am a proud member of the National Rifle Association, the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. Mr. Sullum, go do something biologically impossible with yourself.
Lets see...
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Sounds terribly straight forward to me. All the legaleze, gobbledigook and high words aside, the only thing misguided is that which would take those simple, direct words and try and wrest and twist them to mean something else. That's what's misguided..
However, such agreement to restrictions on the gun industry would have no effect on the movie industry, which, by and large, is the NRA of the street gangs.
It appears the language from last year was included in this bill when no one was looking.
Prior restrain? Should never survive court challenge.
Not satisifed to stop at the 2nd Amendment the big government types are moving immediately over to demolishing the 1st.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.