Bob Barr

Gun foes fully loaded with ignorance
April, 10, 2003

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Harold Macmillan, former prime minister of Great Britain, possessed of that delightfully wry but insightful British wit, once noted he "never found, in a long history of politics, that criticism is ever inhibited by ignorance." The ongoing debate in this country concerning the right to keep and bear arms, codified in no less a document than our Constitution, alas, is no exception to Macmillan's Rule.

Second Amendment critics rarely allow ignorance of its genesis or plain meaning to interfere with their frequently virulent broadsides against firearms owners, manufacturers and retailers. Such critics exhibit profound ignorance of other aspects of their arguments as well. A case in point is the opinion piece appearing in the April 3 edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, penned by two well-known critics of all things related to firearms ("Gun industry doesn't deserve free pass").

The target of this most recent attack is legislation pending in the United States Congress designed to protect legitimate manufacturers and retailers of firearms from lawsuits based on the subsequent negligent or unlawful use of their product. Without this legislation, and in the face of ongoing lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms, these businessmen and women would be held liable if a criminal uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, regardless of the fact the firearm was manufactured properly and sold in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws.

Of course, consistent with Macmillian's Rule, the authors of the anti-firearm opinion piece appear to understand neither tort law in this country nor the scope of the legislation itself. They mischaracterize the legislation as offering "special protection" to the firearms industry, when, in fact, the legislation simply codifies existing case law that has been the
rule in America (and Great Britain, from which the historic body of American jurisprudence derives) throughout our entire history. Simply put, the law of product liability in this country has always held that the manufacturer of a
lawful product, manufactured without negligence, is not liable if a person subsequently uses that product negligently or unlawfully.

Think, for a moment, where we'd be as a nation if the law were otherwise; if the law were dictated not by respect for notions of capitalism and common sense, but instead by firearms critics' dislike for firearms. If these critics had their way, Detroit automakers would be liable for the carnage perpetrated by every drunk driver on the road, simply because they manufactured the automobile an irresponsible person decided to drive while under the influence. It wouldn't take many such multimillion dollar lawsuits before one of two things happened -- car manufacturers stop manufacturing cars and turn instead to something safer, such as alarm clocks, or legislation is enacted exempting them from such nonsensical and destructive lawsuits.

What has happened in recent years is that the anti-firearms lobby, in cahoots with a number of trial lawyers and like-minded politicians such as former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell, have concocted the legal fiction that firearms manufacturers, alone among manufacturers of lawful products in America, should be subject to a standard to which no other manufacturer is held. Thankfully, many courts and legislators across the country, including here in Georgia, have either dismissed such lawsuits or passed state laws abrogating them. Unfortunately, some cases remain active, and the need for clarification and reaffirmation of long-standing principles of jurisprudence requires federal legislation.

This federal legislation affords nothing "special" to the firearms industry. On the contrary, it simply prevents activist courts and predatory trial lawyers from entertaining lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and retailers for acts for which no other manufacturer or retailer would be liable.

Let us return for a moment to yet another argument made by the anti-firearms critics -- if this legislation is enacted, it would allow a firearms retailer to escape liability for selling a firearm in violation of federal or state law. As these authors opine, with characteristic overstatement, the proposed law would grant "blanket immunity" to even the most "corrupt" or "irresponsible" firearms dealer. Here again, we see that ignorance of the actual scope of the legislation has no effect whatsoever on the certainty with which these self-proclaimed experts oppose the proposal.

The simple fact is, under current law as well as under the proposed law, a dealer who sells or transfers a firearm corruptly, in violation of a state or federal law, could and should be held fully liable. Similarly, a retailer who sells a firearm knowing, or reasonably should know, that the weapon will be used to commit a crime would -- and should -- be held fully liable.

Perhaps if these anti-gun authors had taken the time to actually read this or similar legislation introduced and debated in previous congresses, they would have realized the errors in their draft and at least not based their prejudices on factual inaccuracies. But then again, recognizing the accuracy of Macmillan's Rule, I doubt it.