So, columnist Anna Quindlen thinks it's perfectly OK to sue gun companies if their product is misused by criminals.
According to her brand of logic, we have a lawful product, lawfully manufactured under federal regulation, sold lawfully by dealers under federal and sometimes state regulation, that somehow grows horns if misused.
The gun was made for target shooting (lawful), self-defense (lawful), hunting (lawful) or collecting (lawful).
The industry that made it is among the most regulated in the nation, yet Quindlen faults it for pushing legislation that would protect it against clearly frivolous lawsuits that seek not just compensation but bankruptcy and financial ruin of the maker.
In jurisdiction after jurisdiction across this nation, judges have dismissed these frivolous lawsuits for what they are -- badly disguised attempts to get rid of guns by bringing down an industry after legislative attempts to do so have failed.
But certain judicial activists, spurred on by the anti-gun cabal, have allowed these atrocious lawsuits to proceed in their courtrooms against all precedent, all common sense, all logic.
If manufacturers of lawful products are routinely held liable for items that are misused by criminals, the entire tort system of law will be thrown on its head -- for example, guns, knives, matches, gasoline, motor vehicles, axes, hammers, etc.
Since the National Rifle Association is backing the "Reckless Lawsuit Pre-emption Legislation," Quindlen makes the NRA the bogeyman of her column.
And she claims it's "easy" to find NRA members who favor gun licensing and registration. I've been an NRA member for 49 years and I've found two. (There are 4 million NRA members.) Registration and licensing are highways toward confiscation (see Great Britain and Australia).
MARSHALL J. BROWN