Lawyers Hold Gun to a Nation's Head

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 15, 1999 | by Woody West

Is anyone surprised? The zealous campaign by those who know absolutely what's best for us -- and their allies, the lawyers in the damages lottery are now assailing gun manufacturers with the same tactics that succeeded against tobacco.

And not far down the road -- bet on it -- alcohol manufacturers and the fast-food and snack-product industries also will be targeted for litigation. (For a dizzying example of this mode, slightly modified, Yale University's Kelly Brownell is advocating a tax on foods high in fat and cholesterol. "To me, there is no difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel," he is quoted as saying with evident seriousness.)

After the tobacco industry's agreement to pay $208 billion -- that's "b" as in "billion" -- to the states last fall, the lawyers know there's gold in them that hills. As the legalistic juggernaut of big bucks and puritanical passion mobilizes, it is obvious that the coalition intends to achieve by litigation and judicial fiat what has eluded them through legislation -- the legitimate channel for social change.

More drastically, what this puristic campaign signifies is a seismic shift from the premise of individual responsibility to group "rights." This is reflected as well in the demand for cultural entitlements based on membership in sexual, racial and ethnic groups -- the antithesis of the dignity of the individual that's been the glue of this diverse society.

The opening shot against gun manufacturers was fired when a number of cities filed lawsuits on variously inventive grounds. Generally, as in the logic of the antitobacco strategy, the cities are contending that they should be reimbursed for costs allegedly associated with firearms -- medical expenses, police costs and so forth, under the rubric of "public health."

Chicago and New Orleans are in the fore. Half a dozen other cities have filed or are contemplating lawsuits, assiduously advised by an alliance of legal firms, some of which were active (and wildly well paid) in the tobacco settlement. Fee awards to the legal beagles are absurd, indeed "obscene," as a dissident member of an arbitration panel called the $8.2 million award to lawyers who represented just three states in the tobacco settlement.

There is a fearsome amalgam of players and elements in the wave of litigation for which tobacco established the pattern. First is the efflorescence of outrage of the professional and well-organized legions of dogoodism. Second are the battalions of lawyers capitalizing on this amok sentiment and the ridiculous contingency fees ("Why does a hearse horse snicker/Hauling a lawyer away?").

Then add the demagoguery amplified by much of the press, which has coalesced sufficient public opinion to subvert the imperative of individual accountability.

The keystone in the arch of the republic is that each of us must bear responsibility for his actions. If that tenet is degraded, power becomes oppressive and finally tyrannical. In The Radicalism of the American Revolution, historian Gordon S. Wood writes, "In their purest form [republics] had no adhesives, no bonds holding them together.... Without virtue and self-sacrifice republics would fall apart." The vital center of sacrifice is individual responsibility.

It is that imperative that the combination of nannyism and opportunism are corroding. Note the recent verdict in Brooklyn in which a federal jury decided that several large firearms manufacturers were guilty of marketing and distribution that permitted guns to fall into the hands of criminals. The verdict was a tangled one that awarded damages to only one of seven plaintiffs. But that limited success represents a full pivot from established tort law that manufacturers are not responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

One obvious intent of the slew of lawsuits against firearms makers is to bleed the industry by an expensive legal blitzkrieg and force it to accede to or not oppose national firearms regulation. This is perverse. If tobacco and guns (and booze and fatty foods) are clear and present dangers, it is through legislation that they must be restricted or prohibited.

There is vast cynicism in this dance. If tobacco were outlawed, for instance, the government would lose immense tax revenues. And if the antigun crusade were pursued by legislation to the logical conclusion of strict firearms regulation and/or registration, the public backlash would be so powerful that the politicians would make Napoleon's retreat from Moscow look trivial.

The mercenary lawyers, cultural commissars and politicians for whom applause are more important than principle constitute a most unholy alliance -- permitted to rampage by a supine citizenry.