Last week, the Clinton administration announced its intentions to join lawsuits by 28 cities against gun makers. The administration has already been helping behind the scenes by using government funds to produce gun control studies and taking out public service ads warning of the dangers of guns. But despite these continuing efforts, the suits represent a new and worrisome level of federal involvement. The lawsuits threatening gun makers are not only using the courts to do an end run around the legislative process, they are also aiming to make an end run around the entire legal system. By simultaneously bringing suits all across the country, the administration hopes to make it financially infeasible for companies to even have their day in court to defend themselves.
Trial lawyers see the suits as an opportunity to establish new legal precedents.
Rather than asking the traditional questions about the benefits and costs of a product, the suits against the gun makers seek reimbursement for any costs while ignoring a product's benefits. Yet, all products have costs if used improperly. The government could ask car makers to reimburse them for the medical costs of auto accidents and brewers and distillers could be held liable for the actions of drinkers. The only thing missing is having these companies sue governments to be reimbursed for the benefits. Unlike the earlier tobacco suits, gun makers have powerful arguments about the benefits of ownership.