Opinion Editorial | |
|
In early 1998, Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell first proposed
suing gun manufacturers to recover costs related to firearm violence in
their cities. Though Rendell has put his plans for a lawsuit on hold,
Mayor Marc Morial of New Orleans and Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago have
taken up his suggestion and filed suit. Other cities seem likely to file
suit in the near future.
Chicago's lawsuit borrows the theory developed by Mayor Rendell:
(1) guns are a public nuisance and(2) gun manufacturers knowingly flood
cities with more guns than they could expect to sell to law-abiding
citizens, thus aiding and abetting criminals in obtaining firearms. The
New Orleans lawsuit argues that guns as they are currently manufactured are
unreasonably dangerous in design based upon an unfounded supposition: gun
makers have suppressed the introduction of safety devices which would
prevent unauthorized users from firing guns. In both cases, the mayors
argue the public health and safety costs associated with treating and
preventing firearm injuries should be reimbursed to the city by the firearm
industry.
If they succeed, these lawsuits will establish bad law and bad
public policy.
They would establish bad law because they ask the courts to
legislate. In a multitude of similar lawsuits, courts have consistently
held that questions concerning whether firearms should be legal and widely
available are for legislative assemblies to decide. For instance in
Wasylow v. Glock, Inc., the court ruled that "It is the province of
legislative or authorized administrative bodies, and not the judicial
branch, to advance through democratic channels polices that would directly
or indirectly either 1) ban some classes of handguns or 2) transform
firearm enterprises into insurers against misuse of their products.
Frustration at the failure of legislatures to enact laws sufficient to curb
handgun injuries is not adequate reason to engage the judicial forum in
efforts to implement a broad policy change."
In addition, the suits would reverse well-established tort law:
manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their
products. Should automobile makers be held responsible for vehicular
homicides committed by drunken drivers or people in the grip of road rage?
Criminals also use knives, prescription drugs and household products to
commit crimes. Should courts hold the manufacturers of these products at
fault? If gun makers are held liable when criminals misuse guns, where
will the lawsuit parade end?
The lawsuits would also establish bad public policy because guns
prevent more harm than they cause. Criminals fear armed citizens more than
police. Why? Nearly 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by
armed civilians - more than three times the number killed by the police.
An additional 9,000 to 17,000 criminals are wounded by civilians each year.
Numerous studies have shown that citizens use guns in self-defense between
800,000 and 3.6 million times annually (in the vast majority of cases
merely showing the firearm prevents the crime), with the most comprehensive
study estimating more than 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. This
far exceeds the number of crimes committed with firearms each year.
In addition, a recent study by economist John Lott examining the
impact of "concealed carry" permits found that:
However, not every city or state has seen the drop in crime that
has accompanied the liberalization of concealed carry laws. States like
Illinois forbid the concealed carrying of firearms; they have double the
murder rate and a 20 percent higher rape rate than states with liberal
concealed carry laws.
And then there's the curious case of Philadelphia, where the idea
for a lawsuit first arose. Pennsylvania liberalized its concealed carry law
in 1989, but murder and other violent crime rates are still on the rise in
Philadelphia because Philadelphia demanded an exemption from the
liberalized concealed carry law. Citizens in other parts of Pennsylvania,
who have the option of legally defending themselves with concealed
firearms, have seen violent crime decrease - while it continues to increase
in Philadelphia.
While New Orleans and Chicago have filed dangerous lawsuits, a
different kind of lawsuit might actually make the public safer. The
general public might join with crime victims in a class action suit against
public officials, like Mayor Morial and Mayor Daley, whose actions make
them less secure and increase crime rates in general. Guns don't increase
crime, foolish policies do, and those that institute them should be held
accountable. When private citizens take actions which threaten the
public's health or welfare courts can enjoin the action and require
compensation for those who have been harmed. Public officials should be
held to the same standard, if not a higher one.
This Op Ed ran in the The Washington Times January 25, 1999.
Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |