NAACP Lawsuit against Gun Manufacturers

[Lindaloo]

Judge Dismisses NAACP Gun Lawsuit
Judge Finds Gun Makers Put Public at Risk but Tosses NAACP Suit Alleging Members Uniquely Harmed

The Associated Press



NEW YORK July 21 —
A federal judge threw out the NAACP's case against the gun industry Monday, despite finding that the manufacturers have put the public at risk with careless marketing practices.

Affirming a jury verdict in favor of the gun makers, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein ruled that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People failed to show, as required by law, that its members were uniquely harmed.


The NAACP proved its members "did suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York," the judge said. "It failed, however, to show that its harm was different in kind from that suffered by other persons in New York."

A gun industry spokesman, Lawrence Keane, welcomed the outcome.

"It's regrettable that the industry ever had to defend itself against such a frivolous lawsuit," said Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. He estimated that the manufacturers spent $10 million on their defense.

NAACP lawyer Elisa Barnes called the decision a "moral victory" that could open the way for the city or state to pursue similar lawsuits demanding reforms by firearms manufacturers.

An attorney for Browning Arms Co., John Renzulli, predicted the ruling would discourage further litigation. The NAACP "failed twice once before a jury that said it didn't have a case, and once with a judge who said the same thing," Renzulli said.

Weinstein's decision follows a two-month trial that concluded in May with an advisory jury ruling clearing 45 gun manufacturers and distributors of negligence.

The NAACP sued Browning Arms, Smith & Wesson, Glock and other major gun makers in 1999, claiming they knew corrupt dealers were supplying products to criminals in black and Hispanic neighborhoods and did nothing to stop it. Rather than monetary damages, the NAACP sought sweeping restrictions on buyers and sellers of handguns.

The plaintiffs built much of their case on previously sealed data provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under court order detailing sales histories of weapons recovered at crime scenes in New York state from 1996 to 2000. An expert testified that 11 percent of handguns sold in 1996 were used in rapes, robberies, assaults and murders in the succeeding four years.

The defendants argued it was unlawful to hold them liable for the criminal use of a legal product. They also said legislatures not courts should set standards for gun sales.

In dismissing the case, Weinstein found the NAACP established "clear and convincing evidence" that many manufacturers tolerate "careless practices" among retailers.

Manufacturers take too few measures, he wrote, "to eliminate or even appreciably reduce the public nuisance they individually and collectively have created." Among the "obvious steps" would be requiring retailers to stop selling multiple guns to the same customer, he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When will this ever end?

[j]

unbelievable!....well actually this comes as no surprise. What is up with them?...are they Sue happy or what?

[streetsoldier]

No, this is just another attempt to "make law" through the courts, rather than by popular vote or legislation....simply because the proponents KNOW that such a measure wouldn't get past the door in a legislative body, much less garner enough signatures to get it placed on a ballot.

This little legal maneuver was first formulated by a young Swarthmore graduate in TIME Magazine, 1969; her name? HILLARY RODHAM, cited by TIME as one of the "best and brightest" that year.