|
Boston Abandons Reckless Lawsuit
|
"...It`s a lesson that other cities ought to take. Criminals are
responsible for their own actions, not manufacturers of legal products..." |
|
|
-- NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker |
|
Boston
Mayor
Menino |
Boston became the first city to voluntarily abandon its baseless,
reckless lawsuit against the firearm industry on Wednesday. The Dow
Jones International News reported on Thursday that Mayor Thomas Menino
(D) claimed the cost of going to trial was too high, and
the growing
list of court rulings rejecting similar cases limited the "evidence" the
city would be able to present. As expected, though, reckless lawsuit
proponents, including Mayor Menino, have tried to spin the failure of
Boston`s nearly three-year harassment campaign against law-abiding gun
makers as some sort of victory.
Menino claimed that the Boston suit forced gun makers "to take small
steps to address our concerns." But Lawrence G. Keane, vice president
and general counsel for the
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
(NSSF) - a defendant in the case - stated, "No concessions were made in
exchange for the city`s actions. We are extremely pleased with the
suit`s dismissal, but it is unfortunate and inappropriate that Boston
Mayor Thomas Menino mischaracterizes industry safety efforts as being
prompted by the city`s suit. The truth is that industry has been
actively promoting nationwide safety efforts for decades, a fact
previously acknowledged by the mayor."
|
"...[R]eckless lawsuit
proponents... have tried to spin the failure of
Boston`s nearly three-year harassment campaign against law-abiding gun
makers as some sort of victory..." |
According to the Dow Jones International News, Menino even tried to
claim that the decision by gun makers to include a free locking device
with the sale of each new firearm aided the plaintiffs in their
decision, even though most gun makers had already decided to do this in
1997, nearly two years before Boston filed its suit, if not before.
NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker said of the decision to drop
the suit, "It`s a lesson that other cities ought to take. Criminals are
responsible for their own actions, not manufacturers of legal products."
Baker also commented, "I don`t think they ever should have brought it,
and the fact they agreed to have it dismissed with prejudice, meaning
they can`t bring it up again, is a pretty clear indication that they had
no case to start with."
Unfortunately, other cities don`t seem to be learning anything from the
repeated failures of the reckless lawsuit campaign. As Boston decided,
on Wednesday, it could no longer afford to waste taxpayer money on a
suit it simply could not win, on Thursday, Jersey City filed its own
suit.
Another court case in Massachusetts had a more troubling outcome. On
Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit dismissed a
challenge to "Massachusetts` Gun Control Act of 1998" as "unripe." The
case centered around a provision of the `98 Act that requires anyone who
possesses or wishes to possess a "large capacity weapon" or a "large
capacity feeding device" to obtain a Class A license.
The court held
that the plaintiffs had not suffered hardship because they could apply
for a license to possess the regulated items, so the case was not ripe
for review. The decision leaves open and unresolved serious questions
regarding how Massachusetts defines "large capacity weapons" and "large
capacity feeding devices." This means that any otherwise law-abiding
citizen, who is unable to determine if his firearm or feeding device is
subject to the licensing requirement, could face criminal prosecution if
he fails to acquire the license. The penalty for an honest mistake in
this case is imprisonment for not less than 2 years nor more than 10
years.
The bottom line is, given the court`s unwillingness to decide in
this civil case whether the terms at issue are unconstitutionally vague,
such determinations will be made through criminal prosecutions.
The court also ludicrously upheld a ban on licensed gun clubs shooting
at human-shaped silhouette targets, claiming that this prohibition aided
the state in "preventing gun fatalities."
Related Stories...
More About Lawsuits and the Firearms Industry
|
|
