FIREARM INDUSTRY WINS MAJOR VICTORY
WITH COMMON-SENSE VERDICT IN NAACP CASE

BROOKLYN, NY - A 12-member advisory jury in the NAACP's lawsuit against the firearm industry today exonerated manufacturers and distributors with a decision that found unanimously for 38 of the industry defendants. Jurors found for seven other defendants by a vote of at least 10 of the 12 jurors, and in 23 additional instances the jury failed to come to a decision. Not a single defendant was found to be either intentionally or negligently responsible for a public nuisance the NAACP claims occurs within the highly regulated and federally licensed chain of distribution and sale of firearms in America.

"We welcome the advisory jury's common sense finding that the manufacturers and distributors of firearms are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products," said firearm industry attorney Lawrence Keane, vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "The jury understood that these law-abiding companies had done absolutely nothing to cause a public nuisance in New York or harm the NAACP and its members. The proper thing for this court to do is dismiss the case immediately."

This verdict is the latest defeat for those attempting to use the courtroom for an end-run around the legislative process and impose changes to gun laws that federal and state legislators have roundly rejected. The Federal Court's advisory jury's decision can be accepted or rejected in whole or in part by Judge Jack B. Weinsten in the next 30 days.

"This victory demonstrates the claims made by the NAACP and others are baseless and entirely without merit and proves the firearms industry is a highly-regulated and law-abiding industry," added Keane, whose group is the trade association for firearm and ammunition companies.

This case adds to a growing list of decisions demonstrating that the firearm industry should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of its products and that it operates responsibly in accordance with all federal and state laws. The NAACP has learned, as did the cities of Cincinnati, Boston, Philadelphia, and Miami-Dade County and others who pressed similar unfounded claims, that blaming law-abiding manufacturers for the actions of criminals is a no-win strategy unfairly burdening taxpayers, and needlessly clogs our courts while doing nothing to stop crime.

The NAACP and similar lawsuits are the reason why the Senate urgently needs to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 659). Last month the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the bill. A majority of the Senate already supports the bill, as does the White House. Over 30 states have enacted similar, common sense legislation.

The National Association of Manufacturers recently weighed in on this issue by saying, 'Today it's handguns, but tomorrow it could be power tools, golf clubs or automobiles. Manufacturers of perfectly lawful properly designed and well functioning products can't rationally be held liable for third party actions that may result in harm to another.'"

The pending legislation is designed to stop abusive and politically motivated lawsuits that seek to destroy and bankrupt law-abiding companies and circumvent the legislative process to impose a gun control agenda through litigation. The legislation will restore fairness to our nation's judicial system.

Some have falsely suggested this legislation would 'close the courthouse door,' but this popular legal reform does not grant any special protection or blanket immunity for firearms manufacturers. Contrary to what groups like the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence claim, it would not stop injured parties from bringing legitimate lawsuits, on well-established legal theories, against members of the firearms industry.

A plaintiff truly injured by a defective product, an illegally sold firearm, or a firearm sold by a dealer to an irresponsible person would still be able to bring a lawsuit against a firearm manufacturer or dealer. For example, a recent jury verdict in California against Bryco, a gun manufacturer, for selling an allegedly defective product would not be blocked. Another example of a kind of case that would not be stopped by this legislation is Eslinger v. Kmart where a Utah jury found that Kmart had negligently sold a firearm to a mentally ill person whose medication made him appear intoxicated.

This legislation would not prevent lawsuits where the firearm was sold in violation of the thousands of federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the sale of firearms.

The jury also rejected the NAACP's 'junk' science and realized the NAACP failed to prove any wrongdoing by any gun manufacturer or distributor in this case.

The NAACP's and its lawyer's 'evidence' and reckless legal theory have already been rejected by New York's highest Court in an earlier case (Hamilton v. Accu-Tek) brought against gun makers by Ms. Barnes, using the same experts.

In rejecting the Hamilton verdict, the court said, 'In essence, plaintiffs argue that defendants had an affirmative duty to investigate and identify corrupt dealers. This is neither feasible nor appropriate for the manufacturers... manufacturers should not make any attempt to investigate illegal gun trafficking on their own since such attempts could disrupt pending criminal investigations and endanger the lives of undercover officers.'

This case is also an unconstitutional attempt by this court and radical, anti-gun zealots, who are orchestrating and funding this lawsuit, to impose through litigation a gun control agenda repeatedly rejected by Congress and not supported by most Americans.

The gun control agenda the NAACP wants Brooklyn, New York federal court judge Jack B. Weinstein to impose on the sale and distribution of firearms nationwide is a matter our Constitution says is to be democratically debated and decided by Congress, and is not a proper role for courts. This case is an attempted end-run around Congress and state legislatures.

No one is more concerned about the criminal misuse of firearms than the industry itself. The social causes of crime are complex and will not be solved by trying to blame responsible and law abiding manufacturers and distributors for the actions of criminals. This case will not stop a single crime from occurring.

Keane adds, "We hope to now have the opportunity to work cooperatively with groups that share our goal of further reducing firearms accidents and decreasing criminal violence committed with firearms. We believe the NAACP shares these goals and now understands the path forward is best achieved through cooperation, rather through expensive and time consuming litigation."

-30-

To view the entire press kit for the NAACP trial, click here.