Posted on 11/24/2004 12:51:01 PM PST by neverdem
Washington - Emboldened by the results of the month's elections, the nation's largest gun lobby will push again for a federal law shielding gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits.
When the new Congress convenes in January, the National Rifle Association says, it will have four more pro-gun senators. The trade group hopes that will help make the difference in passing a bill that died in the Senate in March.
"The chance of success is greater this time," said Bob Levy, senior fellow at The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
The idea of lawsuit immunity pits gun owners and hunters in rural areas against city dwellers often beset by violence. The NRA wants a law that would exempt manufacturers from civil lawsuits, except when they violate local, state or federal law.
Gun owners say lawsuits increase their costs and put dealers at financial risk. Gun-control advocates say lawsuits are the only means of holding reckless dealers and manufacturers accountable.
States such as Colorado, with both rural and dense urban areas, epitomize that battle. The 1999 Columbine High School massacre made guns an even more sensitive topic in Colorado.
But Colorado is one of six states that ban almost all lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers.
The NRA hopes the money it invested in the elections will pay off with a nationwide ban on lawsuits. The NRA's Political Victory Fund in October poured $1.7 million into six Republican Senate campaigns. Four of those candidates were elected to their first Senate terms, including John Thune of South Dakota, who defeated Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was re-elected. Pete Coors in Colorado was the one who lost.
"There's no doubt the administration feels some gratitude to the NRA for this and other matters," Levy said. "All of this is little chits that the administration is likely to want to pay back."
The lawsuit-immunity bill had the votes to pass in March until amendments were added that the NRA found intolerable. One would have extended a 10-year ban on certain assault weapons. That passed 52-47.
The other amendment would have required background checks of all firearm buyers at gun shows. That issue resonates in Colorado because the Columbine killers obtained their weapons from a woman who bought them at a gun show. The gun-show amendment, offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., passed 53-46.
The NRA then pulled its support from the immunity bill. It died, and the NRA blamed Daschle, saying he orchestrated those amendments behind the scenes, working with other Democratic leaders. The rifle association then worked ferociously to successfully unseat him in the Nov. 2 election.
The lawsuit-immunity bill once again could become entangled in those same gun measures that the NRA opposes.
The 10-year-old assault weapons ban automatically expired in September because it was not renewed. It banned 19 named semi-automatic weapons and other guns with military- type features such as a grenade launcher, a fixed magazine in excess of five rounds or a protruding pistol grip. It also banned high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as those used in the Columbine shootings.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., said she plans to reintroduce the assault weapons ban, tweaking it to outlaw weapons with certain characteristics instead of certain named weapons. It's unlikely to pass, given Congress' new makeup, but introducing it will force lawmakers to stake out a position.
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., favored the immunity bill. In March, he voted against the amendments extending the assault weapons ban and requiring background checks of all gun-show firearm purchases.
Sen.-elect Ken Salazar, a Democrat from the Alamosa area, has not stated a position on lawsuit immunity. As Colorado's attorney general, he supported closing the gun-show loophole. He said he would not renew the assault weapons ban in its current form because it could not pass. Instead, his spokesman said, lawmakers should try to come up with a version that all parties can accept.
The NRA wants the immunity law to come up for a vote without any amendments. The group says the law is needed to prevent frivolous lawsuits, and that it's unfair to punish a dealer or manufacturer when a gun is used in a crime.
Gun-control advocates say manufacturers know that 1 percent of gun dealers are responsible for funneling guns to criminals, but don't stop it because it's a lucrative business. An immunity law would have prevented the kind of lawsuits that over the past year were settled for millions of dollars, said Dennis Henigan, legal director for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Such lawsuits included the case involving the families of those killed by a sniper John Lee Malvo in the Washington, D.C., area. In the first-ever settlement involving a gun manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, and a gun dealer in Washington state agreed to pay $2.5 million.
The last immunity bill said any dealer or manufacturer that violated local, state or federal law would not receive immunity. However, in the sniper case and in two other recent cases that were settled, no criminal charges were filed.
"These were not illegal transactions. These were reckless transactions," Henigan said. "There's a huge range of dealer conduct that moves guns to criminals that does not rise to the level of illegal conduct."
In the sniper case, the weapon used was one of 228 that disappeared from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash., over a three-year period. Family members said that both the dealer and manufacturer were negligent. The manufacturer, they said, should have more closely monitored its dealer.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam sees it differently.
"If they have not broken any law, why should they be held liable?" he asked. "I think you will find in some cases where businesses decide to settle just because the act of defending themselves will cause them financial ruin."
In the sniper case, the $2.5 million was the maximum payout of the insurance companies of the manufacturer and dealer, Henigan said.
Arulanandam points out that courts have rejected other lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Illinois Supreme Court last week tossed out two cases filed by the city of Chicago and crime victims who charged gunmakers created a "public nuisance" by allowing weapons to land in criminals' hands. The judge said there was no evidence to show the manufacturers were to blame.
Taking aim at Senate
Contributions by the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund to Republican Senate candidates:
Richard Burr, North Carolina: $335,971
Pete Coors, Colorado: $224,037
Jim DeMint, South Carolina: $222,954
Mel Martinez, Florida: $478,831
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska: $111,736 (incumbent)
John Thune, South Dakota: $348,678
(Note: All but Pete Coors were elected)
I don't like the idea of our manufacturers having to put with this constant penny-ante behavior until they find a credulous enough jury, and then the trial lawyers turn it into a bonanza of similiar specious lawsuits that now have precedent. We could lose our civilian firearms industry under this kind of pressure, and that's just what these gun-grabbers are trying to do.
On the legislative side, I would also like to start pushing for repeal of the 1968 GCA. Just getting rid of that one great insult to the 2nd Amendment would have more beneficial effect than almost any other legislation than I think of.
WTF?
The NRA should file suit against GM or Ford for a member killed in a car crash. Then the NRA should file suit against meat producers on behalf of a member who died of heart disease. And against a knife-manufacturer and so on and so on.
This is exactly what the Clintons had in mind.
A friend of mine had a series accident. He's going to sue GM. /sarcasm
"Gun-control advocates say manufacturers know that 1 percent of gun dealers are responsible for funneling guns to criminals, but don't stop it because it's a lucrative business."
This is slander. Nothing less. The leftists make these statements and rarely if ever get called on them. The "advocates" who made this statement (if it is not in fact a fabrication by the "reporter") are liars.
So... why aren't EXISTING laws upheld?! There are 20,000 state and Federal laws on the books. Do we need more? This is so flippin stoopid.
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.