City suits are taxing

By Guy Smith
web posted August 13, 2001

If any episode of California political history will seal our national
image as the "land of fruits and nuts", then it will be the lawsuits
filed by cities and counties against firearm manufacturers. This
reputation will not come from the foolhardy suits themselves, but
in how these public agencies doggedly pursue them with your tax
dollars.

We Pay For This?

In May of 1999, a number of California cities and counties filed
simultaneous lawsuits against firearm manufacturers (which to my
layman's legal mind constitutes racketeering and is ripe for a
RICO retaliation).

Most of these suits were filed under the guise of "public
nuisance" statutes. The whimsical theory applied by lawyers –
armed with your tax dollars – is that like a factory polluting a
public water supply and jeopardizing the health and welfare of
the community, firearm makers were supplying the source of
gunshot injuries. Since governments occasionally pay for services
resulting from these injuries, they have a tenuous standing as
plaintiffs on your behalf.

What is staggering about this perspective is the complete
dismissal of reality and responsibility, the former being a
commentary on the mental health of certain city attorneys. The
polluter has an immediate impact on citizens by supplying poison
directly to everyone with a kitchen sink. Yet, in the case of
firearm manufacturers, the alleged legal minds of California
governments fail to contemplate the involvement of third parties.

To the best of my knowledge, no sales representatives from Colt
or Glock have participated in drive-by shootings. Indeed, if one
of their weapons has been used in a crime it likely passed
through at least four intermediaries – the wholesaler, the retailer,
the original purchaser, and the suspect – before arriving at the
scene of a crime.

Given this rather glaring oversight, one would believe that this
variety of lawsuits lacks merit. Indeed, this is the case. Around
the country similar suits have faced the scrutiny of the courts,
with the tally resembling the aftermath of a malcontent tornado:
	
	New York – dismissed.
	Miami – dismissed.
	Bridgeport – dismissed.
	Cincinnati – dismissed.
	New Orleans – dismissed.
	Philadelphia – dismissed.
	Chicago – dismissed.
	Baltimore – dismissed.

Yet California government employees armed with law degrees,
tax dollars, and an uncommon lack of sensibility, continue to
trudge through the courts, investing their salaries, the paychecks
of their staffs, the resources of the courts, judges, clerks and
police departments in the pursuit of an inevitable defeat. I
normally applaud determination, but here an exception is
warranted.

The Research

It becoming obvious that the agencies involved in these frivolous
filings are aware of the mounting political liability. Last August I
employed the California Public Records Act to obtain the
summary cost-to-date of these suits. A snowstorm of letters flew
from my humble abode to Sacramento, Alameda, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, and other locations of litigious
imprudence. In each I requested not specific or detailed
accounting of their activities, but a one-number figure reporting
how many buckets of taxpayer dollars had been poured on the
pyre of stupidity.

And the silence was deafening.

Repeat letters had to be sent with not-so-veiled threats of
litigation to enforce the Public Records Act. Slowly some
numbers trickled in, but some cities obfuscated information or
have flatly refused to provide data (and if any attorney would
care to take on a pro-bono case to enforce disclosure, I am a
ready plaintiff and easy to find). To date the city of Sacramento
and the county of Alameda have steadfastly declined to provide
information, while Inglewood simply refuses to acknowledge
receiving my letters. Some reporting cities have provided
suspiciously limited data (West Hollywood claims they have
spent nothing, while San Mateo County claims only the cost of
one FedEx package). All of these agencies declined to include
estimated costs for the manpower, which anyone who has had
the misfortune to be in court will attest is the most expensive part
of litigation.

Cost to date

The only cost we can be 100% sure of are those that have been
reported, which add-up to a mere $88,123. San Francisco
(surprise) leads the pack having spent at least $62,000 of their
taxpayer dollars on their doomed effort. But the real costs
involve the attorneys. The city attorney for San Francisco has a
salary of $150,000 (one would think for that kind of money they
could find better legal minds than those that propagated this folly)
.

It would be safe to assume then that an assistant city attorney
"earns" around $100,000. Another sound assumption would be
that between a dozen litigating government agencies, they have
employed two full-time attorneys for the two years these actions
have thus far run. Alone, the shyster expenses racks-up another
$400,000 (actually, closer to $800,000 once benefits are
included). It would also be a sure bet that the costs of their staff's
time is half again what the attorney's salaries are, so we'll add
another $200,000. The cost to the taxpayer through the exercise
of the courts and their staffs is immeasurable, but certainly is not
cheap.

The total financial carnage when one considers salaries, benefits,
paper, long distance calls, FedEx packages, and ink easily
climbs above the one million dollar mark.

Now, call me cynical – which would be stating the perfectly
obvious – but I still see a million dollars as significant pocket
change. With benefits, the annual cost to employ the average
California police officer is $110,000. Effectively, these city suits
have kept at very least 10 police officers off the streets. You
know – the streets – where the guns are being used in crimes by
those intermediaries of which city attorneys appear to be
unaware.

When Will It End?

Madness has a cure called "common sense". But like the farmer
that has to yank the ear of a stubborn plow mule, you have to
(metaphorically) yank the ear of your elected officials to apply
common sense. If you live in or near San Francisco, Berkeley,
Sacramento, Oakland, West Hollywood, Inglewood, Los
Angeles, or Compton, or in the counties of Alameda or San
Mateo, you need to ask – preferably in a public forum or letters
to editors – why elected officials believe giving a million dollars
to lawyers is smarter than hiring more police officers. If they
cannot cough-up a rational answer, then at least ask for your
money back.

Guy Smith is President of FundTheCause, Inc.
(www.FundTheCause.com) and author of the e-book Gun
Facts.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com