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.
Not one of the newfangled gun lawsuits has resulted in a jury award so far
You are right, key word is jury award.
So? The cost of legal battles alone has been enough to damage the firearms manufacturing and retail industries.
JPFO is blowing smoke. Look at my posts from that trojan horse thread.
And speaking of .30-30 - that's exactly what Kennedy was after.
"Corporations" are fictional entities created by law to encourage capitalism by limiting personal liability of the owners of the corporation. It is my opinion that any such benefit of corporations is entirely eliminated if their fear of liability causes them to create liberty-free environments.
"They are not in the parking lot (their property) They are in my car(my property)."
Excellent response and dead on accurate.
I looked. Studies are not done for nothing. How armor piercing ammunition is defined makes a big difference. If it is left up to the AG, that could be trouble.
He told me they took some of the kevlar vests they were using (I don't know what they were), and shot them with a CZ-52 using the hot Czech ammo. He said they penetrated every single time. That is a moderate power pistol.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
While that's a good idea, if implemented at the federal level, it's still an intrusion on the state courts.
There is a federal hook though, virtually all the companies banning guns in employee vehicles operate in many states, most of them not chartered in the state where they operate, and certainly not in more than one of them in any case. Thus any suit between their employees and them, is triable in Federal court, via Article III section 2
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State ; — between Citizens of different States;
A corporation is, AFAIK, considered to be a citizen of the state where it is chartered, often Delaware, which is where Conoco/Phillips is incorporated.
Except I don't see the exapnsion of the defintion of "armor piercing" ammunition in the current bill (maybe I missed it, but I checked pretty well).
However what I do see is an apparent re-writing of that portion of section 922 which deals with armor piercing ammuniton, making it a crime to manufacture or sell, except under limited circumstances. But for the life of me, I can't figure out any substantive change in those paragraphs (section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, paragraphs (7) and (8)). Maybe some legal eagle can enlighten me as to what would be changed if the law passed as is, with regard to ammor piercing ammunition.
Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
btt
Well, you're both right and wrong. The "Bill of Rights" in teh Federal Constitution was modelled after those bills of rights of the orignals states that gathered to ratify said Constitution. Those states that entered the Union AFTER ratification "might" have modelled after the Federal Bill of Rights, but they might also have modelled after those of the original ratifying states.
It's VERY enligtening to read the RKBA articles that PRE-DATED the Federal Constituion in the Bills of Rights of the original colonies/states.
Particularly clear was (I think) Connecticut, which went something like "...the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and one's own state, and the taking of game." Too bad the Second Amendment wasn't similarly worded--then there would be no artificial "ambiguity" of the meaning of the "militia prefix" of the Second.
If we own a business, there are areas that are for public access to all customers and employees. You can't allow or prevent certain actions or people in those areas (in some cases, even in the non public areas). The law says these areas can be regulated, 'private' or not.
Parking lots I would think, fall into this 'public area' and the public weather a customer or an employee in his car reporting to work should be secure from an individual or corporation dictating the prevention of content in private vehicles.
If a company feels strongly enough about issue it can fence in the lot, hire security guards and restrict public access.
"Not one of the newfangled gun lawsuits has resulted in a jury award so far,.."
Perhaps, but the end rseult of these suits is to make an already overly affluent class of professional moral prostitutes - the Trial Court Attorneys - even wealthier than they deserve to be, at the exepense of taxpayers and gun maufacturers and gun owners.
These are detrimental, frivilous lawsuits which set a dangerous precedent for even MORE frivilous lawsuits involving other products.
A manufacturer should not be held responsible for the abuse of his product.
Its about time the professional moral prostitutes - the attorneys - behaved more responsibly - and their associates who defy the separation of powers concept by holding seats in the legislature and executive branches of the government while being members of the bar and officers of the Courts simulataneously should all be booted out of office.
Their incestuous interest in generating frivilous lawsuits through idiotic legislation to line their own pockets at the exepense of aociety at large is a national scandal.
We are an overly litigious society, thanks in no small part to these moral insects and I would love to know how much of the gross national product is consumed by these parasites and their cohorts in the Courts.
Especially since many of these lawsuits were brought by local gov'ts who have little regard for the amount of money thrown at the problem.
You have the right to force a pharmacist to dispense RU-486 on demand even though it is his private property, but you do not have the right to force an employer to permit firearms in private vehicles in a parking lot.
Liberal hypocrisy never ends.
Weyerhauser, the forest products company, was the "original" company that fired employees for having rifles in their vehicles to go deer hunting after work. COP and the State Chamber of Commerce were late comers by filing suit against the law passed by the Oklahoma legislature to define your vehicle as an extension of your estate, no matter where it was parked, and that a gun may be locked inside with no recourse concerning a company's "gun-free work zone".
The State Chamber has withdrawn from the suit.
Granted the CZ-52 is a moderate powered pistol, but the cartridge sends a steel jacketed slug down range with the same velocity of a M-1 carbine . Also the round that is fired from that particular pistol is 7.62 Tokerov, a bottle necked cartridge.This serves to increase velocity by allowing more propellant to be used to send a projectile of a given diameter down range than could be used with a straight sided cartridge case.
It should be further noted that the CZ-52 fires the dimensionally the same cartridge as the ORIGINAL mass-produced semi-automatic pistol (1896 Mauser), though ammo for the CZ-52 is often loaded hotter than would be desirable in the older pistol.
Good point.
It's not as though employees are storing the rifles ON Conoco's parking lot.
I do think, however, that the boycott is silly.
As to the lawsuit issue--he's right. The NRA has bought into the "Washington Knows Best" argument.
Frankly, just making lawyers illegal would be better.
The argument is made that the definition of armor-piercing will be left to the AG, depending on what he tests the ammo on... like will 30-06 pierce Kevlar but not an M1 Abrams? It could be then considered armor piercing by the AG. I do find that bill to be dangerous in many ways and would rather the States deal with tort reform and this bill DIE!!!
"I'll see your 3100 fps, and raise you 500 fps
300 Weatherby MAG with 150 grain Nosler 3600 fps"
I must admit, I can't hold well enough to use the extra distance the 300 Weatherby has over the 300 WIN MAG, but I know some guys who can. I'm not worthy! I do appreciate that kind of velocity in the .22-250 REM exploding ground squirrels!
Gee, I never saw that statement in the 2nd amendment..
It just says "shall not be infringed"..
Since the states already guaranteed that right, I personally believe the 2nd was worded the way it was because it was "assumed" that it was an overall prohibition on infringing on the RKBA..
It meant "everybody" is prohibited from infringing, or interfering, with the RKBA...
That would extend right down to the community, and of course, corporations..
I personally don't think anyone has the "right" or "power" to prohibit me from being armed when and where I feel the necessity..
But then again, I'm a Law Abiding Citizen that Always Obeys the Law...
The "gun industry" can be easliy bankrupted without ever having a jury award damages to any plaintiffs. All it takes is a few hundred law suits, all of which may be thrown out of court, or defended successfully.
The problem that the author is missing here is that the goal of the anti-gunners isn't to win. It's to put the gun manufacturers out of business. And they can do that without ever winning a case.
Mark
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.