NAACP Claims and Prior Court Rulings
What the NAACP Claims:
“… the marketing, distribution and sales practices
of the defendants - practices which have led to disproportionate
numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages among those
whose interests the plaintiff represents.” – from
the NAACP’s complaint.
What prior courts ruled:
“[It] cannot be understood to allege that the defendants'
distribution and marketing policies, standing on their own,
cause harm absent criminal conduct.”
Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders
v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
123 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.N.J. 2000)
“[P]ublic nuisance law does not sweep so broadly as
to impose liability on manufacturers of a legal product, who
follow relevant regulations, and who do not control or participate
in irresponsible secondary and tertiary acts that are more
directly responsible for the end harm.”
The Third Circuit reasoned that “[i]f defective products
are not a public nuisance as a matter of law then the non-defective,
lawful products at issue in this case cannot be a nuisance
without straining the law to absurdity.”
Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders
v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
273 F. 3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001)
“It would require us to blink at reality to minimize
the enormous difficulty to be encountered in attempting reliably
to separate out the contribution of the defendants' conduct
to those harms from these other, independent factors [illegal
drugs, poverty, illiteracy, inadequacies in the public educational
system, the birth rates of unmarried teenagers, the disintegration
of family relationships].”
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp.,
780 A. 2d 98 (Conn. 2001)
“… the connection between defendants, the criminal
wrongdoers and plaintiffs is remote, running through several
links in a chain consisting of at least the manufacturer,
the federally licensed distributor or wholesaler, and the
first retailer” and most often also including “numerous
subsequent legal purchasers or even a thief.”
“It cannot be denied that factors other than the defendants’
manufacture, advertisement, distribution and retail sales
of guns contribute in significant measure to the various harms
claimed by the plaintiffs. The scourge of illegal drugs, poverty,
illiteracy, inadequacies in the public educational system,
the birth rates of unmarried teenagers, the disintegration
of family relationships, the decades long trend of the middle
class moving from city to suburb, the decades long movement
of industry from the northeast ‘rust belt’ to
the south and southwest, the swings of the national and state
economies, the upward track of health costs generally, both
at the state and national level, unemployment, and even the
construction of the national interstate highway system.…”
Id. at 124.
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson,
Cause No. 45D05-005-CT-243, slip op. 7 (Ind. Super. Ct. Jan.
12, 2001)
“[A] legislative body cannot authorize conduct on one
hand, and seek to punish it through public nuisance actions
on the other, particularly where a comprehensive regulatory
scheme already governs the challenged conduct.” Id.
at 8.
“[Manufacturers] cannot be legally responsible for
public nuisance if their activities are authorized by the
legislature.”
City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
2000 WL 1871712, *30 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2000)
“[N]o legal duty exists upon these defendants to protect
citizens from the deliberate and unlawful use of their products.”
City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A.
Corp.,
2002 WL 29740, *4 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2002)
In its analysis the district court examined the route a gun
takes from the manufacturer to Philadelphia streets. (citations
omitted). First, the defendant manufacturers sell guns to
licensees; second, the licenses (sic) sell the guns to dealers;
third, the dealer sells it to a lawful purchaser acting as
a straw buyer; forth, the straw buyer transfers the weapon
to a criminal or a youth; fifth, the transferee uses the gun
to commit a crime; and finally, demand on the City’s
or the organizational plaintiffs’ resources is increased.
District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
et al., Civil Action 0428-00, slip op. at 4, (DC Super. Ct.
2002)
“[T]he law of the District of Columbia does not impose
a duty on a firearm manufacturer to refrain from, to limit,
to restrict, or to monitor the lawful, regulated retail distribution
of its products outside the District.”
“The marketing of a handgun is not dangerous in and
of itself, and when injury occurs, it is not the direct result
of the sale itself, but rather the result of actions taken
by a third party.” Beretta, slip op. at 24 citing
Delahanty, at 759-61 (quoting Perkins v.
F.I.E. Corp., 762 F.2d 1250, 1265 n. 43 (5th Cir. 1985))
Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
96 N.Y.2d 234, 750 N.E.2d at 1061-62
The pool of possible plaintiffs is very large--potentially,
any of the thousands of victims of gun violence. Further,
the connection between defendants, the criminal wrongdoers
and plaintiffs is remote, running through several links in
a chain consisting of at least the manufacturer, the federally
licensed distributor or wholesaler, and the first retailer.
The chain most often includes numerous subsequent legal purchasers
or even a thief. Such broad liability, potentially encompassing
all gunshot crime victims, should not be imposed without a
more tangible showing that defendants were a direct link in
the causal chain that resulted in plaintiffs' injuries, and
that defendants were realistically in a position to prevent
the wrongs.
[N]one of plaintiffs' proof demonstrated that a change in
marketing techniques would likely have prevented their injuries.
Federal law already has implemented a statutory and regulatory
scheme to ensure seller "responsibility" through
licensing requirements and buyer "responsibility"
***18 **1066 through background checks.
Gun manufacturers must be licensed by the federal government
in order to produce, deal and ship firearms in interstate
commerce. Manufacturers may sell only to licensed importers,
licensed dealers, or licensed collectors. Manufacturers must
keep records of each firearm they make and sell, including
the firearm's type, model, caliber, serial number, as well
as information about the purchaser. Any firearm shipped must
bear a unique and permanent serial number and the manufacturer's
identity. Like manufacturers, firearms dealers must also be
licensed by the federal government. As the "principal
agent of federal enforcement," licensed dealers must
initiate criminal background checks on purchasers and may
sell only to those who have been cleared by the FBI or other
appropriate law enforcement agencies. Licensed dealers may
not sell firearms to individuals who fall within certain at-risk
categories (felons, drug users, individuals previously committed
to mental institutions and individuals subject to domestic
restraining orders, or convicted of crimes of domestic violence,
among others). Federal law also establishes age limits for
gun purchasers and sales cannot be made to juveniles. Licensees
must keep records of all multiple sales to unlicensed persons.
Additionally, all licensees must report any theft or loss
of a firearm to appropriate authorities within 48 hours. The
ATF oversees compliance with Federal requirements and is charged
with enforcing this entire regulatory scheme (see generally,
27 CFR parts 178 and 179). Dealers face criminal penalties
and license revocation for intentional unlawful sales. (citations
omitted.)
|
