Professor Sebok presents a good analysis of the legal issues, but end with a call for more gun control.
I sent the following e-mail to Professor Sebok:
In your FindLaw article on the Illinois lawsuits against the gun industry, you wrote:
------
Justice Freeman, in a special concurrence joined by the other four, said that the plaintiffs' allegations, if true, support the conclusion that the gun manufacturers know that their actions increase the crime rate, and "actively seek to exploit that fact to increase their profit margin." And he ended his concurrence - on behalf of all five, a majority of the court - with a plea to the state legislature to do something.
In other words, although he was accepting Garman's argument, he raised the ante--if public nuisance was no longer available because the state had taken over the business of regulating handguns, then the people of Chicago deserved real regulations that really protected them.
Let's hope that the state and federal governments listen to these judges.
------
I find that the key words above are "if true." Let's examine the examples given in news reports of the decision.
------
http://news.lawinfo.com/story/2_ds_48241.cfm
The five justices said the gun industry puts fewer restrictions on its dealers than do makers of chemicals or paint and produces criminal-friendly products such as easily concealable guns and weapons with fingerprint-resistant coating.
------
So "easily concealable guns" are "criminal-friendly"? Has anyone here noticed the highly publicized trend in recent years of states passing "shall issue" concealed gun permit laws, and related news stories about the increases in permit holders among the forty-something states that now have such laws? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, gun makers are catering to that market?
And the gun industry "produces criminal-friendly products such as...weapons with fingerprint-resistant coating." How awful! There oughta be a law! Say...there's an idea...and a mystery. Since there are hundreds of gun control laws and proposals from hundreds of gun control advocates and politicians at hundreds of local levels as well as state and federal, why has no law to ban "weapons with fingerprint-resistant coating" not only never been enacted but has never even been proposed?
Mysterious, right? Okay, I know the answer, but do you? Ask me if you do not.
The bottom line is that both examples (that I know of) given in the concurrence are bogus. "If true," indeed.
As usual, you have done a great job of presenting the legal issues involved, but the gun control issue is much more complex than this decision, the concurrence, and your article would suggest.
Posted by Jay at December 1, 2004 10:49 AM