I seriously doubt that gun manufacturers are advertising in the 'Crackhead Times', 'Gangbanger Weekly', or 'The Armed Robber Gazette'.
Of course, it would be amusing if the city lawyers presented this ad to the court.
Posted on 06/13/2002 9:56:40 AM PDT by Printers Angel
In a decision gun-control advocates hailed as their greatest legal victory yet, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that Cincinnati may pursue its lawsuit seeking damages from gunmakers for violent crime there.
Justice Francis E. Sweeney wrote for the majority: "While we do not predict the outcome of this case, we would be remiss if we did not recognize the importance of allowing this type of litigation'' to go forward.
The high court sent the case back to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, which had dismissed the lawsuit without a trial.
Sweeney said the court agreed with decisions in other states that allowed this type of lawsuit to go beyond the filing of legal arguments.
"It's a landmark case,'' said Stanley M. Chesley, an attorney who sued 16 gunmakers on behalf of Cincinnati. "This is an industry that has fought us from having any documents whatsoever.''
He promised to go after damaging evidence that details gunmakers' advertising and lobbying strategies in Ohio and elsewhere.
Lawrence Greenwald, an attorney for gunmaker Beretta, said Cincinnati faces an uphill battle to prove its allegations.
"Every appellate court so far which has addressed the issue -- with the exception of the Ohio Supreme Court -- has held that manufacturers would not be liable for the lawful manufacture and sale of nondefective products,'' he said.
In its lawsuit, filed in April 1999, Cincinnati alleged that manufacturers and distributors used irresponsible marketing and distribution tactics, making firearms accessible to children, criminals and mentally incompetent people.
Cincinnati argued that, as a result, it spent millions of dollars on police, emergency, health, prosecution and prison costs.
Chesley likened the gun case to the out-of-court settlement against tobacco producers in 1998. Forty-six states, including Ohio, settled a $246 billion lawsuit for damages caused by smoking after they uncovered records that showed an industry strategy to hook people on nicotine.
"What do they have to hide? All I want is the truth,'' Chesley said.
Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, also was pleased with the ruling.
"They need to be a little more honest in selling their product,'' she said.
Dennis Henigan -- director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington group that joined Cincinnati's lawsuit -- said, "The day of legal reckoning for the gun industry is approaching. The Ohio Supreme Court today has skillfully dismantled each of the (gun) industry's bogus legal defenses.''
In the court's decision, Sweeney wrote, "We find that the alleged harms are direct injuries (to the city), and that such harms are not so remote or indirect as to preclude recovery by (the city) as a matter of law. . . . The general interest will be best served by having this plaintiff bring this lawsuit.''
The Supreme Court also reversed the 1st District Court of Appeals on the city's ability to recover its costs.
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Deborah L. Cook and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton dissented.
Moyer wondered how the city could prove damages were attributable to gunmakers.
"In many instances, the weapon used in a crime is never recovered. How, under these circumstances, can the city prove that the weapon involved was either illegal or in the hands of an unauthorized user?'' he wrote.
In their argument before the court in October, attorneys for gunmakers warned justices that producers of alcohol and fast food might be next.
"There's this new breed of litigation, and we have seen it start to roll here,'' said Thomas Fennell, attorney for Colt Manufacturing.
Other gun manufacturers did not return Dispatch calls for comment.
Gunmakers have been sued by 34 municipalities nationwide. Eighteen have won, and their cases are proceeding through the courts. Nine cases are pending or under appeal. Seven government entities, including New York state and Bridgeport, Conn., lost their lawsuits.
Sen. Eric D. Fingerhut, an outspoken gun foe, said he wouldn't be surprised by another motion to dismiss the Cincinnati case. The Cleveland Democrat predicted a renewed round of court hearings.
A new state law that grants gunmakers immunity from such suits took effect in October. It does not affect the Cincinnati case because that lawsuit was filed before the bill was approved.
The law prohibits legal action against manufacturers as a result of injuries or damage caused by users of their products. But gunmakers still are responsible for injuries or damage caused by defective weapons.
Dispatch Statehouse Reporter Lee Leonard and the Associated Press contributed to this story.
I seriously doubt that gun manufacturers are advertising in the 'Crackhead Times', 'Gangbanger Weekly', or 'The Armed Robber Gazette'.
Of course, it would be amusing if the city lawyers presented this ad to the court.
Guns don't cause crime -- people cause crime.
How about holding the government responsible for facilitating crime. Politicians and bureaucrats have created and implemented so many laws that virtually every person is a criminal in the eyes of the law. For the most part that lawlessness is a result of politicians and bureaucrats creating and implementing 3,000 new laws each year. Having accumulated to hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations.
Where does most lawlessness emanate from?
"Each year politicians and bureaucrats pass and implement about 3,000 new laws and regulations, and that number also increases on average year over year. That's how the long list of alphabet agencies came into existence. They tell us that these are must have laws and regulations that people and society can't live without.
"Question: how have people and society survived and even prospered for years and decades prior to the plethora of new, must have laws created each year? Are we to believe that people and society would run headlong into destruction without those law? Would they have us believe that man's nature is so perverse as to harm his fellow man so frequently that thousands of new laws need be created each year? And what about their nature-- the nature of politicians and bureaucrats? Are they not of the same nature as all other in the human species? Accordingly, they too would be so perverse that they would harm their fellow man. Perhaps by imposing destructive laws and regulations.
"Despite parasitical elites usurpations and harms, individuals and society prosper. For it is the creators and producers of products and services that enable and encourage man and society via science and business to survive and flourish.
"The only people that need 3,000 new laws and regulations each year are the politicians and bureaucrats."
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Atlas Shrugged
Somtimes I just have to shake my head and throw my hands in the air and ask "why bother"? It seems the problems are too overwhelming at times.
Somtimes I just have to shake my head and throw my hands in the air and ask "why bother"? It seems the problems are too overwhelming at times.
Why bother? Look at the inevitable path the politicians and bureaucrats have people and society racing on. In a word, chaos.
The secret to winning back this country is very very simple...energy conservation...
We have GOT to pick our fights, not be all over the globe!...and present a united front to the liberal fascist media...AND not SCARE the straights!...The liberal fascist media and libs in general...That second point is key...
BE NICE!!! USE THEIR SUPERIOR, PATRONIZING TONE, and remember that they will not recognize your politeness for what it masks...Be nice to win!...not to hide the fact that they really need to be lined up against a wall(I feel that way to varying degrees every time I turn on the Broadcast news or PBS). I can tell you WHY as a conservative this feels wrong(being polite and oh so detached)...Its because hiding your anger feels like LYING!!! MORAL people don't LIKE TO LIE!!!! GET OVER IT FREEPLE...Kill them with KINDNESS...Be the rational one...you've GOT the facts...You ARE morally right...WHY be upset or menacing or "Too Blunt!". Give the liberals time to relax...and gently wrestle them point by point...DON't give up...but don't rush...CONVERT THEM!!!!I guarantee you, when you enlighten a stupid person? It gives you so much more energy than shouting down or burying an opponent with facts.....BE the velvet glove, and SMOTHER THEM AT BIRTH!!! BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
I actually picked up a lib at a bus stop in my big SUV and gave him a ride downtown seattle and just strove to be humourous and forgiving of his attitudes and happened to get a call from a FReeper while in the truck and was HUMAN to her...soft and gentlemanly...The hitcher even volunteered to say "hi" to her on the phone...and THEN I told him how we had met...on FR...He was BLOWN AWAY...When he got out of my truck to, go see some foreign film, his last words to me were..."You've given me a completely different perspective on what Conservatives are like, Thank You."
When Clinton was in office and I was grinding my teeth every friggin day...I would have put the guy out on the sidewalk the minute he started in on his moronic world view...now he's a moron with a seed of doubt in his head that may grow into an actual thought someday...there's definitely FERTILIZER between his ears currently|;-D
So stay focused on the most critical freedom issues...and Don't Scare the Liberals!!! To WIN!!!!
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.