City's gun suits tossed out

[-..__...]

:eyes:

Will they never learn?

(all the more reason for Congressional action in the form of an immunity bill).

"City's gun suits tossed out

November 18, 2004

BY JOHN O'CONNOR ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPRINGFIELD-- The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed two lawsuits accusing gunmakers of knowingly letting weapons fall into the hands of criminals, ruling Thursday that there was no legal basis for holding the manufacturers responsible.

The lawsuits, filed by the city of Chicago and victims of gun violence, accused gunmakers and sellers of creating a "public nuisance" by pouring guns into the Chicago area that kill people and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in law-enforcement and health care.

Gunmakers argued the lawsuits were attempts to prevent people from purchasing a legal product. They said criminals, not the gun industry, are responsible for violence.

"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices, and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance," the court ruled. "It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance."

The court's rulings in the two cases were similar and unanimous, but five of the seven justices were so disturbed by facts raised in the lawsuits that they also wrote a separate opinion urging the Legislature to intervene with tougher regulations.

The rulings could have implications for lawsuits nationwide targeting alleged health and safety breaches that guns cause. An earlier wave of lawsuits contending guns were intentionally made too deadly-- product-liability claims similar to those against the tobacco industry-- also failed."

8<-------- Snip

More

[slackmaster]

1. The people of Chicago deserve a full accounting

Of how much money the Daley machine has spent pursuing these ridiculous actions.

[iverglas]

9. the Daley machine ...

... aren't they Democrats?

[-..__...]

12. Yes they are ...

Thank you for pointing out what we all already know (unless there actually was some other point you failed to mention?).

Zell Miller, Tom Finneran and Joe Lieberman also have a (D) after their names (just thought I'd "point" that out).

[slackmaster]

14. Yes, only unlike Jerry Brown they aren't good Democrats

:hi:

[lil-petunia]

2. With the freepers in control, one must protect oneself

I just went out and purchased a Smith and Wesson, 9 mm handgun. A rifle to follow shortly.

When the maniacs come to my door, I'll play a rational Chuck Heston.

[damntexdem]

3. The nutcases are in control.

Chicago doesn't have a chance -- but they should keep fighting. Someday America will have to become reasonable about guns, particularly handguns.

[JeebusB]

5. Absolutely!

It's about time we abolished the NFA of '34!

[aikoaiko]

23. Abolish NFA of 1934!

IN my dreams.

[mosin]

7. Chicagoans should keep fighting.

Someday they might get a mayor and other leaders who respect the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for their defense and security.

For now, they're stuck with gun-obsessed Daley and a generation of entrenched anti-gun rights sentiment.

[JeebusB]

20. And what might the reason be

behind the gun obsession? Given the corrupt Daley legacy, I think it's arguable that its not out of concern for the good of society.

Could it be, perhaps, that power-hungry elitists fear any power whatsoever in the hands of the people?

[iverglas]

21. yeah

(I don't get it. If the people who brought this action are so corrupt, why didn't they just go get bought off by the firearms manufacturers?? Do we really imagine that the latter would have begrudged the former a few campaign contributions?)

"Given the corrupt Daley legacy, I think it's arguable that its not out of concern for the good of society."

Arguable ... by anyone who refuses to inform him/herself about any relevant facts. Read that "concurrence" yet? Any reason to assert that the allegations made by the plaintiff (you can read them in the copy of the concurrence I provided in this thread, with the salient bits highlighted) are *not true*? Other than ...



"Certain criminally stupid elements of society
like to pretend that a preemptive attack on the
source of an assertion (or better yet, the entire
group that leans that way) substitutes for having
to listen, understand and form a cogent counter-
argument. This is known as "poisoning the well."
Only the truly mindless dullards will ever use it, ..."
http://winace.andkon.com/pics/

[mosin]

22. Civil conversations

Sometime in the last few months, you've lost the ability to have a civil conversation.

It's too bad. I enjoyed some of our early conversations.

Now -> :boring:

[slackmaster]

8. Chicago is a perfect example of what's wrong with gun control

The handgun ban in Chicago hasn't had any measurable effect on crime there - and obviously can't ever reduce the availability of handguns to criminals unless it gets walled off from the rest of the country. Then there would have to be a meticulous search of every nook and cranny, and ongoing searches of everyone and everything that enters.

If Chicago wants to get rid of guns that's pretty much what it would have to do. The rest of the nation, even the rest of Illinois, would never put up with such draconian restrictions.

The real problem in Chicago is an above-average percentage of residents who are violent criminals. There are plenty of examples of large cities in this country where handguns aren't restricted, and we who live in them have much lower crime than the Windy City.

It's clearly not a gun problem.

[Township75]

4. I am so thankful that Chicago uses it's money on senseless lawsuits rather

than on schools, or on the police, or on helping the poor. It sure shows that their politicians are working hard on solving real problems. Sarcasm off.

[DonP]

6. From the ILSC Conclusion

This thing never stood a chance the minute it got out of the hands of Daley's hand picked judges in Cook County.

The back story is that now Beretta and several of the other manufacturers and distributors are going after the City and County to recover their legal costs.

Here are some of the better parts of the conclusion. My favorite is where they refer to it as a "novel claim" and then chastise the Amici for trying to tell the court its duty.

I'm confused by their reference to gun manufacturing and distribution as a "highly regulated industry"? Haven't we been told by Sarah Brady that there are more regulations on teddy bear manufacturers?

This follows the veto override earlier this week on the homeowner defense issue, re: Hale DeMar in Wilmette, the guy that shot the burglar on his second break in in two days.

ILSC Decision, edited for space.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs (City of Chicago and Cook Coutny) and the amicus briefs (filed by Lisa Madigan and the US Conf. of Mayors) supporting their position advocate expansion of the common law of public nuisance to encompass their novel claim. They anticipate our reluctance to expand nuisance liability in an area highly regulated by both state and federal law and urge that it is not only within our inherent authority, but it is also our duty, to construe the common law to aid a local government's effort to protect its citizens from gun violence.

To do so, we would have had to decide each of the issues raised in this appeal in plaintiffs' favor. In effect, we would have had to resolve every "close call" in favor of creating an entirely new species of public nuisance liability. Instead, after careful consideration, we conclude that plaintiffs have not stated a claim for public nuisance. Even granting that a public right has been infringed, we conclude that their assertions of negligent conduct are not supported by any recognized duty on the part of the manufacturer and distributor defendants and that their allegations of intentional conduct are insufficient for public nuisance liability as a matter of law.

By implication, proximate cause is also lacking as to the manufacturer and distributor defendants, who are even further removed from the intervening criminal acts. Finally, we hold that plaintiffs' action for damages is barred by the Moorman doctrine and the municipal cost recovery rule.

Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts. In response to the suggestion of amici that we are abdicating our responsibility to declare the common law, we point to the virtue of judicial restraint.

[iverglas]

10. can I borrow your specs?

I could lend you my law degree, if that would help ...

My favorite is where they refer to it as a "novel claim" and then chastise the Amici for trying to tell the court its duty.

I'm afraid I missed that last bit. No chastising that I could see.

Did you actually think that this:

In response to the suggestion of amici that we are abdicating our responsibility to declare the common law, we point to the virtue of judicial restraint.

was "chastising"? You must have been a very spoiled child, to have seen so little chastising as to think that this was it ... or just not have a clue what the court was actually saying.

You could always try asking google to tell you about "judicial restraint". Of course, the court did give you a clue right there:

Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts.

[anonymous44]

11. Good Job

This is similar to suing general motors because their cars happen to get into accidents.


Suing macdonalds for making you fat.
Suing the homeowner because you tripped and fell on his sidewalk.
Suing starbucks because you burned yourself with their coffee.

I guess that some people just never learn.

O well i guees anything is possible.

[-..__...]

16. Actually....

the plethora of firearms lawsuits is much worse. Unlike the examples you mention, the gun lawsuits are orchestrated and carried out with the intention of bankrupting the industry and/or forcing to comply with the wishes of gun-controllers.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/docket.php

None of these "nuisance" cases have any merit.

[DonP]

13. Not really

"I could lend you my law degree, if that would help .."

Probably worth about as much in Chicago as $10 Canadian would be trying to buy a beer in Wrigleyville.

But thanks for playing anyway and once again missing the point by 1.6 Kilometers or so.

[iverglas]

19. well, friend

Probably worth about as much in Chicago as $10 Canadian would be trying to buy a beer in Wrigleyville.

That would make it worth a good deal more than the spectacles you were evidently looking through when you saw the court "chastising" the amici parties.

But thanks for playing anyway and once again missing the point by 1.6 Kilometers or so.

Hmm, you mean there was some other point to the post I replied to?

The court found that there was no cause of action. I got that, eh?

Ya read the other decision released at the same time? -- Young v. Bryco Arms --
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2004/November/Opinions/Html/93678.htm

And ya noted what FIVE of the judges had to say there (and incorporated into their "concurrences" in the Beretta case)? I highlight for your convenience:

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring:

The majority's recitation of the facts and its discussion of the current state of the law with respect to the issues raised are both comprehensive and accurate. The conclusion reached is legally correct, and I am compelled to join in it. However, some of the more disturbing allegations in plaintiffs' complaint are not highlighted in the majority opinion because they do not impact the majority's legal analysis. I write separately to call attention to these contentions.

According to plaintiffs' complaint, the Chicago police department recovered an average of approximately 17,000 illegal handguns in the City of Chicago in each of the years 1994 to 1997. In each of the years 1996 to 1998, more than 500 firearm-related fatalities were recorded within the city limits. More than 10% of the victims were under the age of 17.

These facts are both alarming and saddening but, as defendants argue, they are the results of the actions of third parties unrelated to defendants. However, plaintiffs' additional allegations about defendants' conduct, if true, suggest that defendants were not only aware that their products were used by third parties for criminal acts, but that defendants affirmatively sought to increase their profit by pandering to that market. For example, plaintiffs state that defendants oversaturated markets near Chicago, supplying guns in nearby suburbs far in excess of the number that the citizens of those suburbs would ordinarily be expected to purchase. Plaintiffs also contend that defendant gun manufacturers have not placed restrictions or limits, let alone oversight, on their distributors and dealers -- as opposed to manufacturers of other potentially dangerous products such as chemicals and even paints -- in order to remain willfully ignorant of the process by which their products are farmed out into the communities of Illinois. Plaintiffs also argue that the manufacturers have included features on some weapons to make them more attractive to the criminal element. They offer as an example the small, easily concealed nature of the Bryco "59" semiautomatic handgun, and also note the fingerprint-resistant coating on the Navegar "TEC-DC9."

I do not believe that all gun manufacturers should be insurers or guarantors of the conduct of the users of their product. However, I do believe that it is disingenuous to place all manufacturers on equal footing, in light of the allegations of oversaturation of markets, failure to institute even minimal oversight of the distribution network, and deliberate inclusion of features designed to make specific products more attractive for criminal use. It is, of course, impossible for a manufacturer, distributor, or even, in most cases, a dealer to know that a particular gun will be used in a crime. But plaintiffs' 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.

Notwithstanding the above, I recognize that it would be an enormous expansion of the doctrine of public nuisance if this court were to apply the doctrine to these defendants. Other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions with respect to this question. Nevertheless, the large number of policy considerations which must be weighed on this topic lead me to conclude that it is a matter best left for legislative, as opposed to judicial, action. Given the disturbing statistical data that I noted at the outset of this separate opinion, it is my sincere hope that our General Assembly will turn its attention to the problems this case brings to light.

CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW and JUSTICES FITZGERALD, KILBRIDE and RARICK join in this special concurrence.

Cite the decision as authority for the absence of a cause of action if you like.

But I wouldn't be citing it as authority for the defendant firearms manufacturers in this case having lily-white hands and hearts, or the plaintiff municipality being driven by blind hatred of guns/gunmakers/gunowners.

Not unless I wanted to look really, well, we'll say "disingenuous", shall we?

[JeebusB]

17. Good!

"The back story is that now Beretta and several of the other manufacturers and distributors are going after the City and County to recover their legal costs."

I hope they get everything their legal defense cost them. Plus a bit more for litigious malfeasance and punitive damages.

[iverglas]

18. uh

I hope they get everything their legal defense cost them. Plus a bit more for litigious malfeasance and punitive damages.

Recovery of costs has absolutely nothing to do with damages; if costs are awarded by the court, they are assessed by the court on whatever basis the court directed (party-and-party, solicitor-client, etc.).

I've looked at the decision in question, which a previous poster quoted but failed to link to:
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2004/November/Opinions/Html/95243.htm
I don't see anything about costs; do US appellate courts not normally include a disposition of requests for costs in their reasons? Perhaps it's a separate, subsequent step; but it still would not involve awarding damages.

They'd have to sue separately for damages, punitive or otherwise, and perhaps that's what they're doing. But certainly no court I know would entertain a claim for the costs of a previous case; that claim ends with the disposition of that case and the issue of costs in it. But then, I don't know nuttin' of course.

Funny, though, how it just is not a bunch of totalitarian right-wing régimes persecuting these poor firearms manufacturers. It's a democratically elected Democratic municipal government, as I understand it. One that isn't out persecuting anybody else at all in the courts, as far as I can tell.

One just has to wonder ... well, I do ... whether said municipality might just, possibly, conceivably, have some reason for what it was doing other than that blind hatred of guns/gunmakers/gunowners stuff ...

Nah, not possible, I know.

[LinuxUser]

15. Good, but...

These lawsuits are frivolous. If Ferrari makes a car which is really really fast and some moron goes 150 mph and kills some innocent person, it's the moron's fault, not Ferrari's fault. Same with S&W, etc.

But... these manufacturers should not have any special immunity. Courts will sort this out. Getting started with giving specific industries special immunity seems like a bad path to be on. If one gets it, they will all start lobbying for it and pretty soon our courts will not have the authority they need.

My opinion on this of course.