More Whitehouse gun lawsuit stuff

DC

Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Officials Threaten Gun Lawsuits


By PAUL SHEPARD
.c The Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite recent setbacks to the gun lawsuit cause in Florida
and Connecticut, federal and local officials are still threatening to bring a
national lawsuit against the gun industry if manufacturers fail to enter
negotiations designed to increase firearm safety.


``This is a problem that can no longer be ignored,'' Housing and Urban
Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo said after meeting Tuesday with
representatives of 19 local jurisdictions and the NAACP.


Characterized by participants as a productive session, the gathering at HUD
headquarters was the first step by national and local officials to persuade
gun makers to negotiate or face a federal class action suit from public
housing authorities.


``We don't want to spend years in courts when we can save lives now,'' said
Bruce Reed, the White House domestic policy adviser who attended the meeting.


A National Rifle Association official said the threatened federal lawsuit
smacks of ``desperation'' on the part of the Clinton administration after it
failed to persuade the GOP-led Congress to pass additional gun control
measures this year.


``I think it's a show of desperation on their side that they would still be
talking about heavy-handed legal tactics that have been thrown out in
courtrooms in Florida, Connecticut and Cincinnati,'' said James J. Baker,
director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.


On Monday, a Florida state judge threw out a suit filed by Miami-Dade County
alleging guns created a public nuisance and threatened residents' safety.
Last Friday, a Connecticut state judge dismissed a similar suit brought by
the city of Bridgeport. And in October, an Ohio judge dismissed Cincinnati's
suit. At the same time, another judge in October allowed Atlanta's suit to
proceed and ordered the industry to open its files.


Reed said the gun industry should not rely on the negative rulings as
protection from future decisions and avoid negotiating how to make guns safer
with new technology and how to change distribution, marketing and advertising
practices in ways the cities are seeking.


``We've had good days and we've had bad days in court but this issue won't go
away,'' Reed said. ``I think it's in their interest to stay at the
(negotiating) table.''


Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim said his city would appeal Friday's ruling and
said the federal response on the gun issue would give local suits more weight
in the court of public opinion if not the courtrooms of state judges.


``Getting HUD to join us is big because we can get in under one umbrella
without waiting to see what happens in 20 different verdicts,'' Ganim said.


Cuomo said that in the coming weeks, representatives from HUD and other
federal agencies including the Justice and Treasury Departments would huddle
with state, county and city government officials ``to get a better sense of
where we are going.''


Baker of the NRA said gun makers would likely talk with the group that
emerges from HUD's efforts, but said he feared other suits might arise even
if a settlement were reached.


``They won't be able to bind the whole world to one settlement,'' Baker said.
``They could get a settlement with the housing authorities and there could
still be 50 or 100 other lawsuits out there


AP-NY-12-14-99 1511EST[/quote]

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 

DC

Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

US Local Officials Fear Quick Gun Suit Settlement, WSJ Says


Washington, Dec. 15 <A HREF="aol://4344:30.bloombrg.389091.602536905">(Bloombe
rg)</A> -- U.S. municipal officials fear the White House might be too eager
to quickly settle a lawsuit against gun manufacturers so that President Bill
Clinton can claim a political victory before the 2000 election, the Wall
Street Journal said. The concern emerged in a strategy meeting in Washington
between administration representatives and local officials over the suits,
which seek to change the way handguns are made and distributed, the newspaper
said. Municipal officials said privately during the meeting that they didn't
intend to turn over control of the litigation to the administration, the
Journal said, noting that some gun-industry executives expect the president
to be more flexible than municipal officials.


The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development might bring a
class-action suit next year against gun manufacturers on behalf of the 3
million people in federally funded public housing projects and are potential
shooting victims, Clinton said last week.


(WSJ 12/15 A16) For the dowjones.com Web site, including stories from the
Wall Street Journal, enter DOWJ <Go>


Dec/15/1999 7:45 [/quote]

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Here's even more bad news:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Feds fire a Round

Washington’s new tactic: target gunmakers with litigation
By Matt Bai NEWSWEEK

Dec. 12 — It was an unseasonably warm December Friday, and managers at Colt were already looking ahead to a weekend of Christmas shopping as they arrived at the plant in West Hartford, Conn. Instead, they were handed lists of employees and told to let them go. An engineer who had been with the nation’s oldest gunmaker for almost 20 years wept openly in disbelief; another man went outside and vomited.

THE SUN WAS SETTING by the time the executives realized that they, too, were on the list. The "furloughs" brought the number of layoffs at Colt this holiday season to more than 300, slowing production of new guns to a crawl as management scrambles to save the company. From Connecticut’s "Gun Valley" to California’s "Ring of Fire," gunmakers are starting to buckle under the weight of mounting legal bills. "Without the lawsuits," says Donald Zilkha, one of Colt’s owners, "none of this would have happened." Twenty-eight municipalities and the NAACP have already sued, and two states — New York and Connecticut — are threatening to do the same. And last week the federal government vowed to file a monster class-action lawsuit against the industry if it doesn’t agree to sweeping changes.

The administration’s real aim is to push both sides to make concessions, and some gun execs are privately hopeful that it will do just that. But the Feds’ bullying tactic also raises the stakes considerably. It may now be impossible for gunmakers to have their day in court without going bankrupt defending themselves. Having failed to beat the gunmakers in Congress, the White House and its allies now seem bent on litigating them to death.

FOLLOWING IN LOCAL FOOTSTEPS
Behind the scenes, administration officials have been trying to broker peace in the gun wars from the start. But having failed to make an impact that way, the White House is prepared to coordinate a suit on behalf of some 3,300 public-housing authorities, for whom gun violence is costly. Like the cities, the Feds would claim that the gun companies design unsafe products and knowingly distribute them to criminals. Although Ohio and Connecticut judges have now thrown out the municipal suits, courts in four states have let similar suits go forward. Before it gets to that point, government lawyers are looking for a settlement that would
allow Clinton — and Al Gore — to claim a victory on guns. The administration would rather avoid a costly suit that couldn’t possibly be resolved before Clinton leaves office. "We have strong litigation if it comes to that," says Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo, "but I don’t think it comes to that."

He may turn out to be right. While the mighty National Rifle Association and its archenemy, gun-control groups, are nowhere near compromise, more moderate factions on either side aren’t really that far apart. Most of the companies that have been meeting in Washington with lawyers for the cities and New York’s attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, are willing to accept some new restrictions, including background checks at gun shows. Glock, for one, has proposed a modified "one gun a month" system, whereby anyone who buys multiple guns could take only one home right away and pick up the others after a thorough background check. What gunmakers need most now is a negotiator on the other side who wants a deal as badly as they do, and who can sell it to the mayors — a role the White House can play.

A FRACTIOUS COALITION
Meanwhile, gunmakers aren’t the only ones who have to make some compromises. Getting 28 mayors to negotiate in unison is, in Cuomo’s words, "like trying to herd cats." Sources close to the talks say the cities are divided over a few key points, most notably the introduction of high-tech "personalized" guns that could be fired only by their owners. Dennis Henigan, the chief lawyer for Jim and Sarah Brady’s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a co-counsel in many of the suits, wants to force gun companies to make only personalized guns by a fixed date. That’s not a popular position among other plaintiffs’ lawyers, who think Henigan’s position will get in the way of an agreement.

That debate is likely to get more heated next month, when Sigarms, Inc., a Swiss-owned company, begins shipping the first-ever personalized handgun. The $900 pistol — about $150 more than the regular version — won’t fire unless the owner enters a pin code into a keypad under the barrel. Others will surely follow. Colt had been banking its future on a start-up company that would make an even more sophisticated "smart gun," but Steven Sliwa, Colt’s former CEO, left the project when he was unable to attract investors. Another gunmaker, Mossberg and Sons, has set up a new venture to introduce the first personalized shotgun as early as next year.

Clinton’s point man on guns, Bruce Reed, will begin meeting with plaintiffs’ lawyers next week to sort out the government’s position on personalized guns and other key issues. But even if he gets a deal that everyone can live with, this latest gambit raises deeper questions about a government’s role in the courts. After all, unlike Big Tobacco, the $2 billion gun industry can scarcely afford to defend so many lawsuits, and several insurance carriers are already refusing to pay the costs. "The industry’s already in court — we didn’t put them there," Reed says. "We’re offering them a way out." With so many enemies taking aim, it’s likely to be the best offer they get.

© 1999 Newsweek, Inc.[/quote]


------------------
RKBA!

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Top