U.S. Court of Appeals Reverses
“Hamilton Decision”
Against Firearms Manufacturers
Season of Sanity Continues
NEWTOWN, CT-A summer that has featured a
string of significant legal victories for the firearms industry
was capped on August 30 with a unanimous ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversing the jury
trial decision presided over by Judge Jack B. Weinstein and
instructing that the “Hamilton Case” against firearms manufacturers
be dismissed.
The case, Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, et al., received
national attention as the first case in which a handful of
private individuals were allowed to proceed to trial in a
claim for damages against the entire firearms industry. New
York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Michael Hess, attorney
for the City of New York, and attorneys from Handgun Control
Inc. had filed amicus curiae briefs with the Court in an attempt
to support plaintiff’s case.
“The unanimous Second Circuit Court opinion
reinforced an earlier unanimous decision by the New York Court
of Appeals that there was no evidence and no basis in law
to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal
misuse of their product,” commented Robert T. Delfay, president
and chief executive officer of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation. “We trust this puts the final nail in the coffin
of this distasteful experiment to harass legal and responsible
manufacturers through unproven and convoluted legal theory.”
“Firearms are a legal product, lawfully produced
at the request of law-abiding citizens and law enforcement.
This decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the State of New York,
affirmed the common-sense notion that a manufacturer of a
firearm is simply not in a position to be able to stop the
criminal misuse of that firearm and, therefore, cannot be
held liable for such criminal misuse. Although firearms manufacturers
use extensive safeguards in the sale of their products, the
fact that crimes can still occur in the face of these extraordinary
efforts proves the fairness of the court’s decision,” commented
Jeff Reh, general counsel of Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
“The Federal Court of Appeals characterized
plaintiff’s case as “novel,” and it is. What is novel about
this case is that it tried to hold manufacturers liable for
firearm misuse with which they had nothing to do and were
unable to prevent,” Reh said. “What is not novel about this
case, according to the Court, is the law. The Court of Appeals
stated very clearly that long-standing court decisions and
simple fairness dictate that a manufacturer of a lawfully
made, lawfully distributed product cannot be held liable because
a criminal decides years later to misuse the product.”
“What was also compelling about the New York
State Court decision was that the Court went out of its way
to show that the case was not just legally wrong, but was
factually wrong as well. Cutting through all of the misinformation
used by plaintiff’s counsel in the case, the State Court found
that the sale and distribution of firearms is, in fact, heavily
regulated,” Reh added. “Manufacturers use extensive safeguards
in the sale of their products. They provide safety instructions
for every product they sell. They provide locks for firearms
and support industry programs that provide safety training
to millions of customers. They only sell to customers who
have passed careful screening processes, including fingerprint
background checks of top company officials, prior to making
shipments to that customer. The fatal accident rate involving
firearms has dropped over 50% in the last 15 years. Crime
rates are going down dramatically. The allegation by plaintiffs
that firearm manufacturers are negligent in the sale and distribution
of their products is a canard.”
Other significant legal decisions rendered
this summer in favor of firearms manufacturers include:
-
Dismissal in early August of a suit filed
by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, attempting
to hold firearms manufacturers liable for the costs of
gun violence.
-
A decision by the California Supreme
Court in early August that firearms manufacturers cannot
be held responsible for the criminal misuse of a legally
sold and non-defective product.
-
A decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court
dismissing a suit against firearms manufacturers by the
City of New Orleans and Mayor Marc Morial. Morial’s suit
was the first of some 30 municipal lawsuits against the
firearms industry instigated by anti-gun interests. Approximately
half of these city suits have now been dismissed in favor
of the firearms manufacturers.
“Firearms manufacturers are pleased,
but not surprised, at this string of legal victories,” commented
Delfay. “We have felt all along that the law and common sense
would bring an end to this politically motivated litigation
and we have begun down the road to that reality. But despite
this welcome season of sanity, there shall be no celebration,
nor gloating. These lawsuits will continue to be immensely
expensive and wasteful not only for responsible firearms manufacturers
to defend but also for state and city taxpayers who must pay
for these suits merely so a handful of headline-seeking politicians
and anti-gun zealots might test their novel legal theories.
We now hope that all concerned will begin to turn their attention
to fighting criminal firearm use, not legal, regulated and
responsible commerce.”
-30-
|