Mayors Wrong on Guns

The New York Times op-ed on Feb 24, 2004 from mayors Bloomberg, Daley, Hahn and King mischaracterizes the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act and irresponsibly presents misleading information on firearms.

Firearms manufacturers are being sued for the acts of criminals who illegally obtained their guns and intentionally used them in crimes. No other manufacturer of any product is subject to this unfair treatment. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act does not immunize firearms dealers from civil liability. Just like any other product manufacturer, they are fully liable if they break the law or if a product defect causes death, injury or harm. The act only provides to firearms manufacturers the same standard of liability that is used for any other product manufacturer.

Anybody who is against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms bill should explain why one industry should be singled out and held responsible for the acts of criminals who illegally obtain and intentionally misuse its products. Shall we sue Chevrolet if a bank robber steals a Corvette and uses it as a getaway car? Shall we sue Oldsmobile because an old man fell asleep at the wheel and killed somebody? Shall we sue Ford because a drunk driver ran down a kid on a bicycle? We don't because none of these events are caused by a product defect or by any fault of the car manufacturer or the dealer.

Another fact Bloomberg, Daley, Hahn and King fail to mention is that these lawsuits have been dismissed as frivolous and ungrounded by courts in several states. Overall the results have been mixed. This is the nature of civil liability cases which are heard in different cities and states across the nation. The very foundation of our government is to set public policy by elected representatives. But if these lawsuits are allowed to continue, we will have public policy set by the inconsistent, unpredictable, nonrepresentative forum of civil legislation.

Let's look at the REAL motivation behind those who oppose this bill. Why would these people want to subject companies to huge penalties and fines when they have done nothing wrong? There are 2 reasons.

First, follow the money. If these suits are successful, firearms manufacturers and dealers will have to pay millions of dollars. Where does that money go? Much of it goes to the trial lawyers who pursue these frivolous lawsuits. The rest goes straight into the hands of big city mayors like Bloomberg, Daley, Hahn and King. They are willing to spend millions to pursue these lawsuits because there are even greater millions that go into their own pockets if they are successful.

Second is politics. Banning guns is a popular cause among lefties, elitists, and anyone else who believes the American people are children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions. They know what is best for us, and the well documented fact that their gun control measures increase violent crime and reduce public safety will never get in the way of their cherished beliefs.

Some would compare the discussion to cigarette manufacturers. But the analogy is invalid for several reasons.

Firearms are used every day by law enforcement, miliary, and law abiding citizens to prevent crime and defend people. The same is not true of cigarettes.

Cigarette manufactuers were guilty of lying with false and misleading advertising for decades. But firearms manufacturers have not lied, have not misrepresented their products, nor have they marketed them to minors.

There is no constitutional right to smoke, but the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It is true that firearms are used by criminals to harm and kill people. But discussing only the costs and not the benefits is irresponsible and leads to bad policy. Reliable government and academic sources show that firearms are used defensively to prevent crime and protect human life far more frequently than they are to commit crimes. Laws that recognize the right of law abiding people to arm themselves for self defense have a proven record of improving public safety and lowering violent crime. There are now more than 35 states that recognize this right, and they have seen immediate and lasting reductions in violent crime.

It is an unfortunate fact that victims of violent crime cannot always dial 911, and even when they do the police cannot always get there in time. Mayors Bloomberg, Daly, Hahn and King should explain why they would line their own pockets with the ill gotten gains while reducing public safety and exacerbating violent crime, and denying the law abiding, hard working mothers and fathers in their cities their most fundamental human right of self defense.