Posted on 02/16/2004 9:23:38 AM PST by neverdem
A large number of police chiefs and other law enforcement officials have joined gun control advocates in a campaign to defeat a Senate bill that would grant gun makers and dealers almost total immunity from lawsuits.
The bill, which is strongly supported by the National Rifle Association, is scheduled for a Senate vote in early March but could come up for a vote even sooner. As many as 59 senators have signed on as sponsors, only one vote shy of the number needed to defeat any attempt at a filibuster. A similar bill passed easily in the House last fall.
The police officials' campaign began last week when Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department held a news conference there denouncing the bill. Chief Bratton and 80 other police officials then signed a letter to the Senate expressing their opposition. At the same time, a full-page advertisement featuring a photograph of Chief Bratton and paid for by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence appeared in The Washington Post.
The advertisement is expected to appear soon in other major newspapers and on television, and Chief Bratton, the former New York City police commissioner, said he would go to Washington to lobby senators.
The campaign is supported by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents the chiefs of police in the 50 largest cities.
"To give gun manufacturers and dealers immunity from lawsuits is crazy," Chief Bratton said in a telephone interview.
"If you give them immunity," he added, "what incentive do they have to make guns with safer designs, or what incentive do the handful of bad dealers have to follow the law when they sell guns?"
"This is not about doing away with guns, but about trying to ensure the safety of police officers and the American public," said Chief Bratton, who was police commissioner in New York City in the early 1990's when there was a sharp drop in homicides, as there was last year in Los Angeles under Chief Bratton.
But a spokesman for the N.R.A., Andrew Arulanandam, said most rank-and-file police officers supported the bill, and he dismissed Chief Bratton's criticism as ill informed.
"My response is, Chief Bratton ought to hire better lawyers," Mr. Arulanandam said.
Mr. Arulanandam said the bill "would not grant blanket immunity to every dealer and manufacturer," because in cases where a dealer or gun maker violated a state or federal law, a person could still sue.
Both Chief Bratton and lawyers familiar with the bill challenged Mr. Arulanandam's interpretation of the legislation, saying it does bestow immunity on the gun industry.
The wording is important, because the N.R.A. began pushing the bill to thwart lawsuits against the gun industry brought by nearly two dozen cities and counties. Of the 23 original lawsuits, 14 have been dismissed by courts, but 9 are pending, including suits in Cleveland; Chicago; Gary, Ind.; St. Louis; New York; Los Angeles; and San Francisco.
One lawsuit that could be jeopardized by the immunity bill has been brought by the families of eight of the people killed in the Washington-area sniper shootings. That suit, filed against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun shop in Tacoma, Wash., where the snipers' Bushmaster XM-15 rifle originated, and against the manufacturer, is scheduled for trial this fall.
According to an opinion written by Lloyd N. Cutler, a Washington lawyer who was just named by President Bush to the panel that will investigate intelligence failures before the war in Iraq, "The bill, if enacted, would require dismissal."
Mr. Cutler's opinion was sought by the Brady Campaign and a copy of it was provided to The New York Times.
Mr. Cutler said the bill would lead to dismissal of the suit because neither Bull's Eye nor Bushmaster violated a federal or state law in connection with the rifle, as would be required by the immunity bill. Although Bull's Eye was found by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to have lost 238 guns from its inventory, with no record of them being sold, the only evidence about how the snipers got the rifle was a statement by one, Lee Malvo, that he shoplifted the gun.
Both snipers, John A. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo, were prohibited by law from buying the gun — Mr. Muhammad because he was under a domestic restraining order and Mr. Malvo because he was a juvenile. But since there was no record the store sold them the gun, it cannot be charged with a violation of the gun laws, Mr. Cutler said.
Instead of charging the store with a legal violation, the lawsuit alleges negligence in the store's handling of its inventory, a claim made under common law doctrine, Mr. Cutler said. Yet negligence is not a violation of law, so the bill would force dismissal of the suit, he said.
Gil Kerlikowske, the police commissioner of Seattle, said he would go to lobby the Senate because his experience as a police officer had taught him that "civil lawsuits are the only way to ensure accountability" in the gun industry.
When he was police commissioner of Buffalo, Mr. Kerlikowske said, his officers found that most guns used in killings there came from a single store just outside the city limits. Data from the A.T.F. have shown that just 1 percent of dealers supply almost 60 percent of the guns recovered in crimes, Mr. Kerlikowske said, and this dealer was part of that tiny fraction of corrupt dealers.
Despite a decade of efforts, he said, the A.T.F. has been unable to shut that dealer down because of weak federal gun laws.
Um, because it's the law and will still be the law?
"If you give them immunity," he added, "what incentive do they have to make guns with safer designs, or what incentive do the handful of bad dealers have to follow the law when they sell guns?"
We should ask "Chief" Bratton why he feels his department's guns are unsafe and what should be done to make them safer.
Additionally, the "Chief" wants to deny a good law from being passed due to a "handful" of bad apples. Deny the rights of the many due to the actions of a few.
Perhaps the LA papers should ask why this man is in charge of a dept where the officers can't safely handle their weapons and he can't bust crooked gun dealers.
No, immunity from frivolous lawsuits. If any given product works AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO, why should there be a lawsuit? Do victims of drunk drivers go after the mfr of the automobiles?
This has NOTHING to do with safety.
I suppose he means other than the incentives associated with manufacturers being sued for defective design by injured customers, or dealers going to jail for violating state and federal laws regarding the sale of firearms.
Are police chiefs today really this stupid?
Are the cops using lawsuits to enforce the law now?
Mike
In other words, you want to be able to prosecute and/or litigate against people who have not broken any laws? Is that what you want?
Anybody wanna bet the civil lawsuits will just be limited to these "1 percent" of miscreants?
What a place in history we've come to when accountability for the individual is something that we don't even mention.
Because it keeps them employed.
Crime increases when gun control increases. Crime decreases when gun control decreases.
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.