Gunco Forums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Drive-By Lawsuits

Crime Prevention: Unable to repeal the right to bear arms, gun control advocates have tried to repeal the right to sell them, on the theory that if we disarm potential victims, gun violence would end.

In yet another victory for the concept of individual responsibility for one's actions and just plain common sense, the Illinois Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a lawsuit by the city of Chicago against 18 gun manufacturers, four distributors and 11 dealers. The city asserted that the firearms industry has created a "public nuisance," and asked for $433 million for health care and emergency services expenses.

The notion of individual responsibility for one's actions is completely foreign to those who support these lawsuits, which make about as much sense as suing Ford, GM, Chrysler or your local car dealer for providing the cars used in drive-by shootings.

These lawsuits are based on the bogus theory that gun manufacturers and dealers selling a legal product that functions as intended and is not defective should refrain from selling "too many" of them and "should know" what the purchasers intent is. They also argue that when some wind up in the wrong hands, it constitutes the creation of a "public nuisance."

Those filing such lawsuits hope one day to find an activist judge who shares their fantasies. Failing that, the hope is to impose legal costs that will bankrupt gun makers, gun dealers or both.

Gun-control advocates are free to file more such lawsuits elsewhere, which is why passage by Congress of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is necessary.

While 28 such lawsuits have been defeated in other states, including Louisiana, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Georgia and Pennsylvania, similar cases are pending in Ohio, New York and Indiana. Since the first such lawsuit was filed, 33 states have passed legislation giving gun makers and dealers liability protection.

Can we sue the lawyers and politicians and judges whenever there is an assault, rape, carjacking or murder by a criminal out on probation or parole, or who has a prior criminal record? Can we sue when judges release dangerous criminals early or when felons are released by a silly judge more concerned with the "harmful" effects of prison overcrowding?

Guns with features that appeal to criminals also have features that appeal to potential victims. Small, inexpensive guns condemned by high-rise liberals are useful for self-defense by poor people in rough neighborhoods with a relatively high percentage of criminals. Should it be OK to sue gun makers and distributors that help poor people defend themselves and their families?

We are never told the other side of the equation ? how many crimes are thwarted and lives are saved by potential victims being armed. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that law-abiding citizens successfully use handguns at least 2.5 million times each year in defense of themselves and their families.

Guns can be used to save lives as well as take them. Shouldn't we then also financially reward manufacturers and dealers when armed victims successfully defend themselves and save lives and property?

If we are to punish gun makers and sellers every time their product is used in a crime, then we should reward them every time their product saves lives in self-defense, enabling a potential victim to ward off, capture, wound or kill a violent criminal.

The fact is that violent crime has declined as the incarceration of violent criminals and the prosecution of those who use guns in crimes has increased. When we control our goons, we don't need to control our guns.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=11/30
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Here's an antigun spin report on the same case:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,575244,00.html

Brief exerpt:
"Illinois Supreme Court Justice Charles Freeman wrote that the "plaintiff's allegations, if true, support the conclusion that defendant gun manufacturers are not only aware of the probability that their wares might be used in the commission of crimes, but that they actively seek to exploit that fact to increase their profit margin*it is my sincere hope that our General Assembly will turn its attention to the problems this case brings to light." He was joined in the concurring opinion by four other judges.

"The judges were on target in their expression of alarm," said Dennis Henigen, Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project. "In lawsuits filed by other cities, we have uncovered compelling evidence of gun industry complicity in supplying the underground market."
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Plaintiff's bar combined with various state AG's and such are a formidable force to take away rights in the name of safety.

One of the most dangerous men in America is Eliott Spitzer, AG of NY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
I always thought that the family of someone murdered in Chicago should sue Mayor Daley for not allowing people the right of self-defense within the city. This last summer Daley warned the people of Chicago that he didn?t want to see any nuisance lawsuits just because cops are now going to let kids with excuses stay out past curfew. He went on and on about how unfair these nuisance lawsuits are to him. He then said that if anything happens to the kids that it won?t be the city?s fault, and that it will be the parents responsibly to keep their kids home and safe. This comes from a man that has sued the gun companies for allowing their product to fall into the hands of criminals.
Talk about nuisance lawsuits! What the hell was HE doing? I?ve lived here all my life and still can?t understand how such a corrupt POS can stay in office.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top