Chairman Linda W. Cropp
A PROPOSED RESOLUTION
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To declare the sense of the Council in support of litigation on behalf of the District
of Columbia against manufacturers, importers, and dealers of firearms that have discharged
and caused bodily injury or death in the District of Columbia.
RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this resolution may be cited
as the "Support for Litigation Against Gun Industry Sense of the Council Resolution
of 1999".
Sec. 2. Findings.
(a) In October 1998, New Orleans became the first city in the nation to file suit
against gunmakers, demanding redress for the cost of responding to shootings in that city,
and alleging that manufacturers of firearms failed to install safety devices that would
prevent children and unauthorized users from firing guns.
(b) Chicago followed with its own lawsuit in November 1998, offering other liability
theories.
(c) The number of municipalities suing the gun industry rose to four on January 27,
1999, when Miami-Dade County and Bridgeport, Connecticut filed separate lawsuits, and many
other cities are planning to initiate litigation against the gun industry during the next
few months.
(d) These municipal lawsuits seek to hold the manufacturers, dealers, or importers of
firearms collectively liable for the multibillion-dollar public costs of violent crimes in
their jurisdictions. The public costs of gun violence include, but are not limited to, law
enforcement salaries, the purchase of emergency medical equipment, payments for services
and facilities for the medical treatment of gunshot victims, and lost tax revenues due to
defendants’ products and actions. The suits are seeking either reimbursement for municipal
costs related to gun violence, or restrictions on the ways that firearms are manufactured
and distributed, or both.
(e) The New Orleans suit argues that, under Louisiana’s unusually strict product
liability law, guns are "unreasonably dangerous" because manufacturers have
failed to take steps that would prevent the guns’ use by children and other unauthorized
users. The suit alleges, for example, that manufacturers have failed to include adequate
warning of the risks that minors could gain access to weapons or include instructions on
how to store a gun to avoid that risk.
(f) The New Orleans suit also claims that several devices have been available for more
than two decades that would prevent an unauthorized person from firing the weapons, such
as simple combination locks built into the handguns, or more complex palm-print,
fingerprint, or other identification technology that would allow only the owner of a gun
to fire it.
(g) The Chicago lawsuit argues that gun manufacturers have become a public nuisance, by
using marketing and distribution methods designed to circumvent the city’s highly
restrictive gun laws, which prohibit handgun sales. According to the lawsuit, the
gunmakers "knowingly oversupply" gun shops just outside the city’s boundaries
with the intention that many of those weapons will be sold to city residents.
(h) David Kairys, a professor of law at Temple University who helped Chicago develop
its lawsuit and who is working with other cities, is quoted in The Washington Post as
saying: "Handgun manufacturers knowingly participate in an illegal market that
supplies criminals, and then they turn around and feed off the fear of crime by convincing
people that they can protect themselves by buying these products. They profit from crime
so they should pay the public costs of crime."
(i)(1) The District of Columbia has had one of the most stringent gun control laws in
the nation for over two decades, prohibiting the possession, transfer, or sale of handguns
in the District.
(2) Despite this strict local law, the District has experienced one of the highest
rates of firearms-related violence in the nation during this same period, causing
correspondingly high public costs associated with law enforcement, medical treatment, lost
tax revenues, and other costs borne by the District government and by innocent victims and
their families.(3) The overwhelming majority of the guns that have been used to commit crimes in the
District of Columbia were unlawfully in the District of Columbia and were originally
purchased in neighboring states with less restrictive laws where guns are readily
available, particularly the state of Virginia.
(j)(1) In 1990 the Council of the District of Columbia led by then Chairman David A.
Clarke enacted the Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act.
(2) This strict liability law, which was temporarily repealed by the Council due to
Congressional pressure but which then was reinstated by voter referendum, took effect in
1992 and was strengthened by the Council in 1994.(3) The law provides that "any manufacturer, importer, or dealer of an assault
weapon or machine gun shall be held strictly liable in tort, without regard to fault or
proof of defect, for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or
death if the bodily injury or death proximately results from the discharge of the assault
weapon or machine gun in the District of Columbia."(4) The law further provides strict liability for any individual who can be shown by a
preponderance of the evidence to have engaged in the illegal sale, loan, lease, or rental
of a firearm for money or anything of value, without regard to either an intent to
interfere with a legally protected interest or a breach of duty to exercise reasonable
care, for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death if
the bodily injury or death proximately results from the discharge of the firearm in the
District of Columbia, regardless of whether the person operating the firearm is the
original, illegal purchaser.
Sec. 3. (a) The Council strongly supports litigation on behalf of the
District of Columbia against the gun industry to compensate the District for the enormous
costs of gun-related violence in the District.
(b) The Council requests the Mayor and Corporation Counsel to obtain outside counsel
who, at no cost to the District government, will represent the District in a lawsuit
charging manufacturers, dealers, and importers of firearms with liability for
firearms-related deaths and injuries in the District.
(c) This lawsuit should be based on several grounds, including the District’s strict
liability law and the liability theories which are being propounded by other
municipalities, such as the failure of the gun industry to provide sufficient safety
devices on firearms and to prevent unauthorized use of firearms, and acts by the gun
industry to stimulate an illicit trade in firearms by flooding surrounding areas with more
weapons than a legitimate, lawful market could ever accommodate.
(d) The Council calls upon the legal community and others to provide assistance to the
preparation and advocacy of this important litigation on behalf of the residents of the
District of Columbia.
Sec. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately.