Supreme Court dismisses lawsuits against gunmakers
By John O'Connor
The Associated Press
Published November 18, 2004, 5:01 PM CST
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 both unanimous, but five of the seven justices were so disturbed by allegations about the industry's practices that they also wrote a separate opinion urging the Legislature to intervene with tougher regulations.
The lawsuits, both filed in 1998, generally alleged that gunmakers, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA Corp. and Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc., and suburban gun shops saturate the metropolitan market with guns they know will end up in the city, which bans handguns.
The rulings were ``very disheartening in this day and age,'' said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, whose city's lawsuit sought $433 million it claimed it spent during a four-year period for police and emergency medical care because of guns.
"More drug dealers and gang bangers are buying more guns,'' Daley said. ``It has nothing to do with the Constitution, and it has nothing to do with hunters and sportsmen and collectors. It's a safety issue.''
The court recognized that people, not manufacturers, are responsible for misusing products, said William Howard, lawyer for six retailers named in the suits, including Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale, which sold a gun eventually used in the 1998 gang killing of Chicago police officer Michael Ceriale.
"You can't do something wrong and then claim somebody else made me do it,'' Howard said.
The court relied on fairness as a measuring stick in its ruling, listing other products, from liquor to cell phones, that if misused can harm others.
Richard Leamy, a lawyer for defendant gun distributors, said the city never claimed that the gun industry wasn't following the law.
"These are the only salesmen in the world who get up in the morning, brush their teeth, comb their hair and check with the FBI and the ATF to find out who they can sell their products to,'' Leamy said, referring to federal agencies that enforce gun laws.
But Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Illinois justices relied on a "very narrow'' interpretation of state law that he said requires plaintiffs to prove negligence in order to prove public nuisance.
Laws elsewhere are not as restrictive as Illinois', Henigan said. He said the rulings were also "out of step'' with courts in New York, Washington, Ohio and Indiana, which have allowed public-nuisance cases to proceed.
"Public health and safety is a common right,'' Henigan said. "The allegations in the cases would establish that the gun industry's distribution system functions to funnel massive numbers of guns into the illegal market, which interferes with that public right.''
In the concurring opinion signed by five justices, Justice Charles Freeman wrote that he and the others were disturbed by Chicago's claims, which followed a sting in which undercover police officers bought guns from suburban shops even after the buyers plainly said they were gang members, buying them for criminals, or taking them to Chicago, where sellers knew handguns were prohibited.
"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 the defendants affirmatively sought to increase their profit by pandering to that market,'' Freeman wrote.
He wrote that the industry puts fewer restrictions on its dealers than manufacturers of chemicals or paint and produces criminal-friendly products, such as easily concealable semiautomatic guns and those with fingerprint-resistant coating.
But he also said fixing that was a job for the Legislature, not the courts.
The National Rifle Association applauded the rulings.
"Now perhaps Mayor Daley and other big-city politicians can concentrate on the real solution to lower crime -- getting criminals off the streets,'' said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox.
Daley said city lawyers would review the ruling to determine the city's next step.
Jonathan Baum, lawyer for Ceriale's father, Anthony Ceriale, and Stephen Young of Skokie whose 19-year-old son was shot to death in 1996, said his clients also had yet to decide what to do next. Options include asking the state court to reconsider or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The families' case against the gun industry was a consolidation of three lawsuits filed on behalf of victims of handgun violence. They sought unspecified monetary damages and a court order to force manufacturers and retailers to be more socially responsible.
"We're very disappointed that the court isn't willing to provide any judicial redress to these people who have suffered so much from the violence to which the gun manufactures and dealers contributed,'' Baum said.
