[Head's up - long post - intellectual ammo]
RKBA Defenders,
An RKBA-lister (AZ-RKBA?) discussed *our* side finally hiring our OWN sharks to start suing these scumbags who are attacking gun manufacturers with frivilous lawsuits. I could not agree more. This post talks a little bit about just how the Left have brought the suits (which has resulted in Colt running scared) and perhaps what we can do to oppose them.
Bad attorney! Bad, BAD attorney! [whack!]
In addition to violating their oaths to 'support and defend the Constitution' in attacking collaterally our RKBA rights to purchase, own and bear arms, the city attorneys, along with their tort-lawyer hired attack dogs, are perverting the legal system with the logical contortions necessary for these suits to succeed.
Those in charge of State RKBA organizations, pro-RKBA lawyers and National RKBA organizations **must** start using the practical weapons of forum shopping (frowned upon, but almost universally practiced by skilled lawyers) and creative litigation (putting a price on bringing gun manufacturer suits, despite the fact that the guns operated safely, but the operator was a gang-banging street punk).
There are remedies: Rule 11 sanctions for bringing vexatious and harassing litigation, ethical complaints, which cost the person who files the complaint nothing, but puts a persoal price on lying to get your case on the docket; civil rights actions (ss 1983, 241-242) to be brought against civil servants who attack our civil rights under color of law or badge of authority, class action suits, and so on.
Here is an excerpt from SALON that demonstrates hard-headed litigation strategy. For good or evil, the language reflects our strengths and weaknesses. Also, in the course of answering my own questions posed on this page, I found that the "1934 Group" is, in fact, working on a legal counterattack.
I also invite those, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who are bringing their own pro-gun suits, to let me know it. I will then create a page in addition to the Second Amendment Attorneys' Page, called "The Docket."
I will then post links to cases like Emerson, Beretta, the Cincinatti [sic] dismissal, Brzonkla, etc. as well as out-of-court settlements, such as those won in the Richmond, CA refusal-to-issue-CCWs case and the North Providence, RI action making buy-backs not quite so easy, as well as the law proposed, forbidding the municipal government from purchasing weapons for the police department which are similtaneously not sold to citizens. Again, stuff like this, once successful in Richmond, North Providence or Cincinatti [sic] might be able to used in any other city in the USA.
The DOCKET won't look pretty, I just want to get all kinds of useful information up there for all to share, FAST.
With no further ado, and a warning that some of these statements may cause some of our better-informed readers' blood to boil, I give you SALON:
Q & A by SALON (aka Clintons' own personal "Pravda")
>"...Why are the lawsuits happening at the city rather than the state or federal level, as we saw in the tobacco cases?
>"The states based their damages on Medicaid claims, which are typically the age range of people with tobacco-related illnesses. Cities are in a different situation: It's the municipalities that bear most of the burden of gun violence. They have to run trauma centers, they have to un law enforcement, they have to do local prosecutions. Some states are considering the possibility, but it's more difficult because state legislatures are largely controlled by rural constituencies, which are less favorably disposed to this kind of litigation. Rural legislators are more likely to be people who are disposed to hunting and other recreational uses of firearms. ...
[You hear that, you 'hicks?' You stand in their way and they have to find a way of getting around you! Good job. The Left gets around you by keeping litigation in the cities. Those in Missouri might recall where they got their "Yes" votes on the CCW referendum, and where the "No's" came from. Too bad more courtrooms can't be located for removal into more rural jurisdictions]
SALON continues:
>"...Gun owners are a minority in America, but the damage they inflict is almost equivalent to automobile owners..."
[How true is this? I understand that doctor malpractice kills about 160,000 patients a year. Of gun deaths, I have heard numbrs between 32,000 to 36,000 in recent years, over half of that number comprised of suicides. If over 99% of the 270 odd-million guns in America are used in a lawful manner each year, doesn't SALON owe the law-abiding 99% of us an apology for this defamtion?
Who is causing the Carnage and where is it centered?
Much of the remaining figure is due to the embarrassingly high rate of gang-banger vs gang-banger. No mention as to whether anybody wants to sue gang-bangers for the cost of gun violence, or special legislation directed at those who fit the profile of gang-banger...
Child vehicle deaths ~ 2,000/year http://carpoint.msn.com/advice/news/414
Automobile Death and Death Rates to 1994 - down and falling
Time (years) Deaths Rates
1970 54,633 26.8
1975 45,853 21.3
1980 53,172 23.4
1985 45,901 19.2
1990 46,300 18.8
1991 43,500 17.2
1992 40,300 15.8
1993 42,000 16.3
1994 43,000 16.5
http://kids.osd.wednet.edu/chsscimath/Exponential99/Toan%20Vu/homepage.htm
http://www.optonline.com/comptons/ceo/00358_A.html
http://www.panix.com/~jlefevre/cars-suck/news/kbarelease.html
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/dept/Courses/NE-275/Slides1/tsld008.html
http://www.insure.com/auto/injury/deaths1098.html
Okay, approximately 34,000 deaths, most of which is suicide and gang-banger violence, versus 43,000 auto deaths. Okay, there are between 40 million to 80 million gunowners in America, a minority true, but 99% of whom are law-abiding, indeed, studies have shown to be MORE law-abiding than our Woodstock-attending, gun-hating counterparts.
Of the remaining number, a substantial proportion of gundeaths are attributable to Black-on-Black street thug violence. My guess is the people doing the killing would not have passed a Brady check -- and oh -- by the way, didn't bother submitting themselves to one. Moreover, I would venture to guess the triggermen were out on parole, and may even had violated that parole one or more times. Can anyone direct me to fact and figures URLs? Here are some that I found:]
And the hits just keep on comin...
http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html#fn47
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman/myth.htm
http://www.stpaul.gov/council/circ/reports/gunrpt.html
http://www.salonmag.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp/index.html
http://www.thecabin.net/stories/010399/new_0103990011.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd111198h.html
This next passage is hard-hitting. I hope all of you compare this side-by-side with the Lott/Mustard graph depicting the nosedive that violent crime takes in CCW-reform states. Use this in your debates! GUN CONTROL KILLS!:
>"A gun control law that has spawned a lot of controversy is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or Brady Bill....the Brady Act went into effect on February 28, 1994... When the Brady Bill was signed into law, eighteen states and Washington D.C. were automatically exempt from the law because they already had stricter gun control laws. These exempt states and D.C. accounted for 63 percent of the nations' violent crimes and 58 percent of the nations' murders. Two of the originally exempt states, California and New York, have the highest and second highest number of murders and violent crimes, respectively. By 1997, ten more states had become exempt from the Brady Bill. The 28 exempt states and D.C. accounted for 75 percent of all violent crimes and 70 percent of the murders in the nation. In fact, California and New York have more violent crimes than the remaining 22 states subject to the five-day wait. http://www.claremont.org/gsp/gsp60.cfm
Now compare it to the crime rates where CCW reform was enacted!! http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/iurist/gunsave.jpg http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/jan98b.html
SALON continues:
>"...And that's the function of tort law in our society. Everyone likes to scream about shark lawyers, but when you have a product that hurts lots of people, sooner or later our legal system finds a way to balance the cost to stopthe bad process..." http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/03/11newsb2.html
Jurist then asks: If that's true, can we then sue the people who pushed through laws that made it impossible to defend ourselves in mass-shooting cases, and in any case where a lawful gun would have stopped a criminal cold? Can we sue the city attorneys and judges who let criminals out on parole, even if they had violated parole before, and then committed more rape, murder and mayhem?
Can we sue the lawyers that drive the cost of protection up so high, only the Beverly Hills crowd can afford their tailor-made inlaid Colts and Bianchi shotguns, thus depriving us of the civil right of self-defense?
Once again, I am ready to work with any attorneys who want to work on doing just that.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/19990811_xnjdo_a_progun_l.shtml
http://www.teleport.com/~dkw/1934WWW.htm
In Liberty,
Rick V.
http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/iurist/dfenders.htm
The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamentl Human Right - RKBA
