Judge Rejects Cincinnati’s Suit Against Gun Makers

Handgun manufacturers facing a legal assault by U.S. cities won a major victory Thursday when an Ohio judge tossed out Cincinnati’s case in the first big test of the legal merits of claims brought by 29 municipalities.

In an order dismissing the Cincinnati case, which sought to hold gun makers responsible for gun-related crimes and accidents, state Judge Robert Ruehlman called the suit an “improper attempt” to use the courts to legislate controls on firearms, echoing the mantra of industry lawyers in cases throughout the country.

Gun makers voiced hope that other judges will embrace Ruehlman’s reasoning when they rule on motions to dismiss. But most observers said the decision, which is not binding on other courts, mainly means the industry has drawn first blood in a battle likely to produce victories and losses on both sides.

The ruling is not expected to derail fledgling settlement talks that began last week between lawyers for the cities and gun makers, although it could alter the dynamics of negotiations if the industry believes the legal momentum is on its side.

“Everyone in the industry is pleased but not surprised” by the Ohio ruling, said Robert Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a Connecticut-based trade group. “We’re looking forward to similar decisions as the suits in other cities reach this level,” he said.

Dennis Henigan, legal director for the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and a lawyer for Cincinnati and other cities, said he expects the case to be reinstated on appeal.

With cases scattered in many jurisdictions, it would be “hard to imagine that the cities would win all of them or the industry would win all of them,” Henigan said. The aim is to change industry business practices, “and that goal can be accomplished without winning every lawsuit that’s been filed.”

Beginning with New Orleans last October, 29 cities and counties have sued handgun manufacturers, and the list--which includes Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago--is growing every month. The National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, acting on behalf of inner-city residents plagued by gun violence, has weighed in with a lawsuit of its own.

Unlike the tobacco industry, which has had to weather a similar assault, the handgun industry is comparatively small and weak. Even with such household names as Smith & Wesson and Beretta, retail handgun sales are well under $1 billion a year, versus $50 billion for the tobacco industry.

The cities are seeking reimbursement for law enforcement and health costs stemming from accidental shootings and gun-related crimes. But they say their main objective is forcing gun makers to improve safety features and actively monitor the sales practices of dealers, cutting off supplies to those who sell to “straw” purchasers who buy for juveniles and crooks.

Gun makers say they are not responsible for gun violence--an argument Ruehlman found persuasive. He declared that the city was not entitled to damages for injuries to third parties such as citizens who are robbed or killed. And he said the city could not recover expenditures for police work or other “ordinary public services which it has the duty to provide.”

The ruling came amid preparations for a second meeting between cities and gun firms to consider settlement prospects.

The peace talks began Sept. 27, when lawyers for cities and the industry met in the Washington offices of attorneys for the Shooting Sports Foundation. No states have yet sued the industry, but the meeting also was attended by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, who have threatened to sue unless a settlement is reached.

On behalf of the cities, Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn presented a list of proposed gun advertising and sales restrictions to be included in a settlement, sources close to the talks said.

The proposals included a requirement that makers supply only dealers who agree to limit sales to one gun per buyer per month, as has become the law in California and Virginia. Gun makers also would have to cut off supplies to dealers found to have sold a significant number of guns that were traced to crimes.

Under another proposal, manufacturers would be barred from advertising claims that having guns in the home increases personal safety. And to reduce accidental shootings, manufacturers would have to provide trigger locks on all guns and meet deadlines for incorporating safety technology to keep guns from being fired by unauthorized persons.

Industry representatives are scheduled to respond to the proposals within the next few days.

While saying it “would be naive” to think the Cincinnati ruling won’t color the talks, Delfay said gun makers want to work with the cities “on reducing accidents and reducing criminal use” of guns.