Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California: Bulk of firearms lawsuit set aside. Cities fail to make their case
San Diego Union Buffoon ^ | Mar 8, 2003 | Alex Roth

Posted on 03/08/2003 9:11:29 AM PST by John Jorsett

A San Diego judge gutted a sweeping lawsuit against the firearms industry yesterday, ruling that several California cities involved in the action couldn't prove the nation's gun makers are to blame for weapons getting into the hands of criminals.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Vincent Di Figlia came a month before the lawsuit was to have come to trial. It would have been the first of its kind to make it to trial.

The judge released more than 20 of the nation's leading gun manufacturers from the suit, saying there was no evidence that they could be blamed for the black market for guns in California.

Even if such evidence existed, the judge said, policing of the industry is a job better left to lawmakers and agents responsible for enforcing existing firearms laws.

The suit was filed in 1999 by a dozen cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, and counties. It accused gun makers and distributors of allowing weapons to fall into the hands of criminals through lax sales practices.

Among other things, the cities wanted the judge to make the gun industry responsible for cracking down on rogue dealers who have track records of allowing weapons to slip into the black market.

An executive in the firearms industry, Lawrence Keane, said Di Figlia's ruling "represents vindication of a responsible industry."

Keane, who represents the National Shooting Sports Foundation in Connecticut, said gun-control activists are trying "to blame us for the acts of criminals and to demonize our products, which are used safely and responsibly by millions of Americans."

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said the decision would be appealed.

The plaintiffs accuse gun makers and distributors of creating a public nuisance and engaging in unfair business practices in violation of state laws.

"Obviously, we're disappointed, but certainly we feel there are strong grounds for appeal," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C.

The organization is providing legal assistance to the plaintiffs.

The cities were suing more than 20 gun manufacturers, including Glock, Beretta U.S.A., Browning Arms Co., Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Taurus International Manufacturing. All were dismissed from the suit yesterday.

The judge also released two trade associations from the suit.

However, he refused to release two California retailers, ruling that the cities had produced enough evidence of misconduct to warrant a trial. The retailers are Trader Sports of the San Francisco Bay Area and Andrews Sporting Goods, which has a dozen outlets in Southern California.

The judge cited an affidavit by a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who said a disproportionate number of guns involved in crimes could be traced to those two retailers.

Lawyers for the cities have said the lucrative black market for guns is the result of distributors who engage in such practices as straw sales, where someone buys a gun for someone who isn't legally permitted to possess one.

Among other things, the cities contend many criminals are able to buy weapons at traveling gun shows.

Lawyers for the two retailers dispute the allegations and cite a high sales volume as a possible reason guns used by criminals are traced to the retailers.

The judge refused to dismiss a claim by the cities against three out-of-state gun distributors that the cities accuse of illegally selling certain types of guns, including banned assault weapons, to retailers in California.

The judge said there is enough evidence of misconduct to warrant a trial on that issue, as well.

By dismissing the bulk of the lawsuit, Di Figlia was following the lead of many other jurisdictions nationwide.

Similar cases in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and Miami-Dade County have been thrown out of court, too. The city of Boston dropped its suit voluntarily.

Lawsuits by other cities – Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and New York City are among them – are pending and haven't made it to trial.

In addition to San Francisco and Los Angeles, the plaintiffs in California included Oakland, Sacramento, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto and other California city and county governments. The case was consolidated in San Diego Superior Court by the state Judicial Council.

San Diego wasn't a participant, however. A spokeswoman for City Attorney Casey Gwinn said the city wasn't invited to participate.

The ruling yesterday came after several hours of oral argument.

The plaintiffs had been optimistic the case would make it to trial because of an affidavit filed last month by Robert A. Ricker, a former chief lobbyist and executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council.

In the affidavit, Ricker accused the industry of ignoring the problem of rogue dealers and deliberately avoiding any remedial action for fear of liability.

Yesterday, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, Michael Dowd, said the firearms industry has "intentionally decided to stick its head in the sand" on the subject of illegal gun purchases."

"Fix it now before the next person in California gets hurt," Dowd said during the hearing.

James Vogt, a lead lawyer for the firearms industry, said the cities brought the lawsuit despite the absence of any hard evidence of misconduct by gun makers. The lawsuit, he said, was "gun-control politics, pure and simple."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 03/08/2003 9:11:29 AM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Very Good News. Occaisonally some proper decisions come out of the Kalifornia court system. Parley
2 posted on 03/08/2003 9:14:53 AM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
A good and bad ruling.
Good that most of the case was dismissed.
Bad that the court still thinks "assault weapons" are a bad thing.
When the 9th Circuit ruling on the AWB in California is reversed (we hope) this part of the case will drop like a rock.
3 posted on 03/08/2003 9:19:08 AM PST by Pistolshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Why do these suits continue to be accepted by the courts?

Each and every one of them has been dismissed over the last several years.

4 posted on 03/08/2003 9:19:55 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Pistolshot
Go to Thomas on the web

http://thomas.loc.gov/ (sorry--I have never been able to make a link that works) and put HR 1036 in the search

The first thing that will stike you is ALL the co-sponsors (243 original co-sponsors).

Next, read the text!

6 posted on 03/08/2003 9:27:15 AM PST by basil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: basil
They mention in the article that the decision will be appealed. If they can take it to the kalifornia 9th circuis, you know that they will win.
7 posted on 03/08/2003 9:32:21 AM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"...However, he refused to release two California retailers, ruling that the cities had produced enough evidence of misconduct to warrant a trial. The retailers are Trader Sports of the San Francisco Bay Area and Andrews Sporting Goods, which has a dozen outlets in Southern California.

The judge cited an affidavit by a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who said a disproportionate number of guns involved in crimes could be traced to those two retailers..."
- - -
Here is the logic:
IF the number of bank robbers' get-away-cars were found to be disproporioately sold by a particular high-volume car dealer....
THEN it is the car dealer's fault that the bank got robbed.
(of course this is TRUE in the eyes of a whiney-ass knee-jerk liberal I-have-no-responsibility-for-my choices-and-actions-in-this-life socialist bastard)
((Ergo: since the favorite choice of clothing for crooks is black-hooded sweatshirts; FUBU and Walmart are responsible for convenience store robberies))
8 posted on 03/08/2003 9:33:56 AM PST by error99 ("I believe stupidity should hurt."...used by permission from null and void all copyrights apply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Why do these suits continue to be accepted by the courts?

Ask yourself the same question about the tobacco lawuits.

Eventually the plaintiffs find a nincompoop jury that accepts the outrageous, which then turns into judicial precedent. That turns into new law made by the court. That turns into more fat fees for lawyers and more court time in the courts, which employ judges. And so, the cycle goes around and around!

Of course, the rest of use lose. But, hey! It's all about money and political agendas, not about right, wrong or Constitutional Law.

9 posted on 03/08/2003 9:46:16 AM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
A good and bad ruling.
Good that most of the case was dismissed.
Bad that the...............................

The Lawyers that took the case on Spec don't get any MONEY.
ABA Outlook.
10 posted on 03/08/2003 9:52:25 AM PST by YOMO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
11 posted on 03/08/2003 10:01:30 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson