|
NEWTOWN, CT-A summer that
has featured a string of significant legal victories for the firearms
industry was capped on August 30 with a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversing the jury trial decision
presided over by Judge Jack B. Weinstein and instructing that the
“Hamilton Case” against firearms manufacturers be dismissed.
The case, Hamilton v.
Accu-Tek, et al., received national attention as the first case in which a
handful of private individuals were allowed to proceed to trial in a claim
for damages against the entire firearms industry. New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer, Michael Hess, attorney for the City of New York,
and attorneys from Handgun Control Inc. had filed amicus curiae briefs
with the Court in an attempt to support plaintiff’s case.
“The unanimous Second
Circuit Court opinion reinforced an earlier unanimous decision by the New
York Court of Appeals that there was no evidence and no basis in law to
hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of their
product,” commented Robert T. Delfay, president and chief executive
officer of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “We trust this puts
the final nail in the coffin of this distasteful experiment to harass
legal and responsible manufacturers through unproven and convoluted legal
theory.”
“Firearms are a legal
product, lawfully produced at the request of law-abiding citizens and law
enforcement. This decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the State of New York, affirmed the
common-sense notion that a manufacturer of a firearm is simply not in a
position to be able to stop the criminal misuse of that firearm and,
therefore, cannot be held liable for such criminal misuse. Although
firearms manufacturers use extensive safeguards in the sale of their
products, the fact that crimes can still occur in the face of these
extraordinary efforts proves the fairness of the court’s decision,”
commented Jeff Reh, general counsel of Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
“The Federal Court of
Appeals characterized plaintiff’s case as “novel,” and it is. What
is novel about this case is that it tried to hold manufacturers liable for
firearm misuse with which they had nothing to do and were unable to
prevent,” Reh said. “What is not novel about this case, according to
the Court, is the law. The Court of Appeals stated very clearly that
long-standing court decisions and simple fairness dictate that a
manufacturer of a lawfully made, lawfully distributed product cannot be
held liable because a criminal decides years later to misuse the
product.”
“What was also
compelling about the New York State Court decision was that the Court went
out of its way to show that the case was not just legally wrong, but was
factually wrong as well. Cutting through all of the misinformation used by
plaintiff’s counsel in the case, the State Court found that the sale and
distribution of firearms is, in fact, heavily regulated,” Reh added.
“Manufacturers use extensive safeguards in the sale of their products.
They provide safety instructions for every product they sell. They provide
locks for firearms and support industry programs that provide safety
training to millions of customers. They only sell to customers who have
passed careful screening processes, including fingerprint background
checks of top company officials, prior to making shipments to that
customer. The fatal accident rate involving firearms has dropped over 50%
in the last 15 years. Crime rates are going down dramatically. The
allegation by plaintiffs that firearm manufacturers are negligent in the
sale and distribution of their products is a canard.”
Other significant legal
decisions rendered this summer in favor of firearms manufacturers include:
-
Dismissal in early
August of a suit filed by New York State Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer, attempting to hold firearms manufacturers liable for the
costs of gun violence.
-
A decision by the
California Supreme Court in early August that firearms manufacturers
cannot be held responsible for the criminal misuse of a legally sold
and non-defective product.
-
A decision by the
Louisiana Supreme Court dismissing a suit against firearms
manufacturers by the City of New Orleans and Mayor Marc Morial.
Morial’s suit was the first of some 30 municipal lawsuits against
the firearms industry instigated by anti-gun interests. Approximately
half of these city suits have now been dismissed in favor of the
firearms manufacturers.
“Firearms
manufacturers are pleased, but not surprised, at this string of legal
victories,” commented Delfay. “We have felt all along that the law and
common sense would bring an end to this politically motivated litigation
and we have begun down the road to that reality. But despite this welcome
season of sanity, there shall be no celebration, nor gloating. These
lawsuits will continue to be immensely expensive and wasteful not only for
responsible firearms manufacturers to defend but also for state and city
taxpayers who must pay for these suits merely so a handful of
headline-seeking politicians and anti-gun zealots might test their novel
legal theories. We now hope that all concerned will begin to turn their
attention to fighting criminal firearm use, not legal, regulated and
responsible commerce.”
|
