Neal Knox Report Gunmakers Held Liable By Neal Knox WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 20) -- After a month-long trial, and six days of wrangling, the jury in the Brooklyn Hamilton case found 15 gunmakers responsible for seven cases of misuse of illegal guns. Three companies were ordered to pay a half-million in damages to the only surviving victim, wounded in what was called an accident, though no one knew what make gun was used. Legal experts said the decision is almost certain to be overturned, but the press and anti-gun groups are ecstatic, reporting that it has encouraged more such suits to be filed. The Hamilton jury repeatedly sent out notes to Federal Judge Jack Weinstein that they were unable to reach a decision, but the judge refused to accept their report. According to post-trial interviews, eight of the 11 jurors (one had been dismissed for chronic tardiness) wanted to find for the gunmakers, contending that third parties shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes or carelessness of persons pulling triggers. Under prodding of the judge and a nurse on the jury who was determined to blame the gunmakers, the jury came up with an illegal "horse-trading" method of assessing damages. The Hamilton lawsuit, brought against 25 handgun makers on behalf of seven "gun victims" killed or wounded in crimes or accidents with illegally possessed guns, was based on a novel theory of "negligent marketing" of firearms. Supposedly, the gunmakers deliberately "oversupplied" guns to southern states, knowing the "surplus" firearms would migrate into northeastern states with more-restrictive gun laws. The jurors reportedly rejected that central claim, but when ordered to continue deliberating, the jury decided to remove from liability those companies whose contracts with wholesalers from 1989 to 1994 prohibited gun show sales or to dealers without stores, such as Smith & Wesson and Ruger. Three companies with contracts lacking such provisions, American Arms, Beretta and Taurus, were ordered to pay $560,000 judgement to the one surviving plaintiff. Perversely, companies without any contracts were released from liability. According to newspaper reports, law professors are divided over whether such cases brought by individuals can succeed (until Hamilton, such cases had been rejected by the courts for more than 20 years). But most legal experts doubt that any of the string of much- hyped liability suits brought by municipalities can win in court. The cities which have filed or are considering bringing such cases don't care; their objective is to prohibit gun manufacture simply by driving the companies out of business through legal costs. Mayors of the first cities to bring suits, New Orleans' Marc Morial and Chicago's Richard Daley, openly stated that the suits are an extension of their failed efforts to achieve prohibitive gun restrictions in the legislatures. That was spelled out in a pious Los Angeles Times editorial Feb. 15: "A courtroom is not, of course, the best place to try to impose reasonable restrictions on how guns are marketed and distributed. That is rightly the province of legislatures. The problem is that Congress and most state legislatures ... have failed to face up to their regulatory obligations." A prime example of how the anti-gun crowd can win without winning was the $49,000 fine Judge Weinstein levied against SWD, a small company which didn't respond to the suit. At the SHOT show, National Shooting Sports announced formation of a warchest, one-half be used for public relations and half to go toward legal and legislative battles. It's the latter that worries me, for when the gun industry has gotten involved in legislative matters, gunowners usually lose. Gunowner groups recognize they are the real targets of the lawsuits against gunmakers. With the help of NRA-ILA and others, Georgia this month passed a law prohibiting municipalities from suing gunmakers, as Atlanta had already done. Such legislation is pending in several other states. Gun Owners of America is promoting British-style "loser pays" laws to make the filing of such cases more costly. I've also talked with lawmakers about assessing RICO-style treble damages for bringing frivolous suits, particularly if there is evidence that the suits were politically motivated. Second Amendment Foundation is sponsoring damage action suits against the cities for "conspiracy to violate civil rights, abuse of process and undue burden on interstate commerce." --- If you haven't yet cast your NRA Director election ballot, I urge you to vote ONLY for the 14 candidates the NRA establishment's ads tell you NOT to vote for --and to vote against the proposed Bylaw amendment. For more information, write Second Amendment Action Committee, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, S.C. 29657 or visit HTTP://www.NealKnox.com)