TO: NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA
For Immediate Release

October 9, 2001

For additional information contact:
Lawrence G. Keane
(203) 426-1320

U.S. Supreme Court Declines
to Revive Firearms Suit

Brady Center Misleads Media on Status of
Lawsuits Against Firearms Manufacturers

17 of 18 suits are fully or partially dismissed
All appellate decisions favor manufacturers

NEWTOWN, Conn., Oct. 9-Commenting on today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision declining to revive a lawsuit by the City of New Orleans against firearms manufacturers, Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence’s Legal Action Project seriously misled the American media and public with his overview of municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry.

According to press accounts, Mr. Henigan stated, “You have cases going both ways. It’s pretty much split down the middle.” But, Robert T. Delfay, president and chief executive officer of the National Shooting Sports Foundation took sharp exception to Mr. Henigan’s assessment. “These comments by Mr. Henigan totally misrepresent the true status of the municipal litigation against the firearms industry. There have been 18 suits decided so far and 17 have been fully or partially dismissed in favor of firearms manufacturers. That’s not pretty much split down the middle.

“Further, what Mr. Henigan failed to tell reporters was that every appellate decision so far rendered in these cases, including decisions by the supreme courts of Louisiana and Connecticut and now the United States Supreme Court, has ruled in favor of the firearms industry. In addition, the highest courts in New York and California both recently ruled in favor of firearms manufacturers in private lawsuits that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for criminal violence committed with firearms.

“By far, the consensus by judges reviewing these cases is that there is no basis in law to hold the manufacturer of a legally sold, non-defective product responsible for the criminal misuse of that product. The attempt by nearly 30 municipalities to do so is totally political and distasteful, as is Mr. Henigan’s misrepresentation of the status of these lawsuits,” Delfay said.

“We can understand Mr. Henigan’s extreme disappointment at the resounding rejection of his politically motivated and harassing lawsuits against the firearms industry but that disappointment is no excuse for his misleading statements regarding the status of these lawsuits. Mr. Henigan owes an apology to the nation’s news media as well as to those citizens whose tax dollars have been wasted in the pursuit of this frivolous and ill-conceived litigation,” Delfay concluded.

 

-30-

 

Note to Editors: Below is a factual summary of the municipal firearms litigation against firearms manufacturers prepared by the National Shooting Sports Foundation on October 9, 2001.

MUNICIPAL FIREARMS LITIGATION

I. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Granted In Whole or In Part

1. New Orleans - upheld on appeal by Louisiana Supreme Court and now by U.S. Supreme Court
2. Chicago - on appeal
3. Atlanta - on appeal
4. Bridgeport - dismissal upheld by Connecticut Supreme Court
5. Miami-Dade County - dismissal upheld by appellate court
6. Detroit - on appeal
7. Wayne County - on appeal
8. Cincinnati - dismissal upheld by appellate court
9. City of Los Angles
10. San Francisco
11. Boston
12. Camden County, NJ - on appeal
13. Los Angles County
14. Gary, IN - on appeal
15. Wilmington, DE
16. Philadelphia - on appeal
17. New York State - on appeal

II. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Denied

1. Cleveland

III. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending

1. St. Louis
2. Newark, NJ
3. Camden City, NJ
4. Washington, DC

IV. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Has Not Yet Been Filed

1. New York City

Summary prepared by Lawrence G. Keane, vice-president and general counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation, 11 Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT 06470 • 203-426-1320 • www.nssf.org