Courting disaster

The anti-gun lawsuits that Boston has signed on to are anti-democratic -- and could provoke a dangerous backlash

The inability of Congress to pass even mildly useful gun-control legislation marks a new low for the Republican majority. Ever since the horrifying shootings in Littleton, Colorado, the public has demanded that action be taken to cut down on firearm-fueled violence. But the Republican House, joined by a substantial number of Democrats, said no, putting those oh-so-generous campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association above the public interest. The final, watered-down bill lost by a margin of 280 to 147. Even most gun-control advocates voted against it rather than allow the Republicans to win a public-relations victory by ramming through a worthless piece of legislation -- including the all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation, which unanimously opposed the bill.

Given that and similar failures over the years, it is understandable that anti-gun activists have turned to the courts in an attempt to accomplish what Congress will not. Understandable, that is, but wrong, both as a matter of principle and of tactics.

Earlier this month, Boston mayor Tom Menino announced that this city would become the 20th to sue gun manufacturers for creating a so-called public nuisance. It's a feel-good solution born of honest frustration, but that doesn't make it right. We're no friends of the gun manufacturers, but it's Congress that is the real menace. City officials, like those backing similar lawsuits elsewhere, talk about seemingly reasonable measures such as demanding that child locks be installed on guns. But when, in their next breath, they reveal that they're seeking $100 million in damages, they offer further proof of the truism that when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money.

Make no mistake: Congress should pass clear, simple, and strong gun-control laws. Automatic weapons should be outlawed; handgun ownership should be restricted; and gun dealers should be closely regulated on a national level. But these steps need to be accomplished through the legislative process, not through the courts.

The principle at stake is merely our democratic form of government. Whether the problem be NRA cash, ideologically warped interpretations of the Second Amendment, or Tom DeLay's brainless non sequitur, "God, not guns," Congress has made it clear it that will not deal with guns in any significant way. Gun-control activists should -- and indeed do -- fight back by supporting anti-gun candidates and by working for campaign-finance reform, which would reduce the NRA's influence. But when activists attempt to use the courts to make an end run around the legislative process, they're perverting the judicial process just as surely as NRA cash pollutes politics.

Tactically, even if such lawsuits succeed, they will undermine the long-term goals of anti-gun activists. By winning in the courts what they have been unable to win in Congress, gun-control advocates would incur the wrath of the vocal pro-gun forces. It is not difficult to imagine a backlash in the form of an NRA campaign to elect an even more pro-gun Congress that could undo any gains gun-control advocates are able to win in the courts.

Conservative opponents of the gun suits like to sneer that if anti-gun activists succeed, do-gooders will next target, say, red meat, or salty snacks. The truth is, though, that these critics may not be far off. The gun suits, after all, are based in large part on the legal strategy used to bring Big Tobacco to the negotiating table, resulting in a $206 billion national settlement. Many of the same law firms that sued the tobacco companies have signed on for the anti-gun crusade. Granted, cigarettes and guns are unpopular with some. But most of us enjoy an occasional drink. What's to stop these same opportunistic lawyers from suing brewers and distillers over drunk-driving deaths? The legal principle is exactly the same, and that's why it's so pernicious.

The good news is that gun control promises to be a prominent issue in the presidential campaign. Both Democratic candidates, Al Gore and Bill Bradley, support tougher restrictions. On the Republican side, Elizabeth Dole has won plaudits for speaking in favor of gun control and thus standing up to the right wing of her party. George W. Bush, to his credit, recently signed legislation that would prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers in Texas; unfortunately, he also supports legislation that would allow Texans to carry concealed weapons, which suggests that it is highly unlikely he'll support any reasonable restrictions. He should be held to account for his irresponsible stand.

Politics, frustrating though it often may be, is how we resolve differences in this society. We must find the will and the imagination to elect a president and a Congress that will pass tough gun-control laws -- and let the courts enforce them.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.