Cities contemplate filing anti-handgun lawsuits.

New Orleans and Chicago filed civil lawsuits against the handgun industry seeking reimbursement of police, emergency, and medical costs stemming from accidental shootings and homicides in an attempt to decrease handgun-related crime. Other cities around the country are exploring legal theories to support similar civil suits,

Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell, head of the gun violence task force of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has been surveying mayors to determine interest in a multi-city lawsuit. A conference spokesman confirmed the mayors will be discussing the issue during their January meeting, but Kevin Feeley, Rendell's spokesman, said the litigation is "only in the discussion stage."

Since last year, the mayors' task force has been negotiating with gun manufactures to improve safety features and regulations, but they also hired legal experts to research potential liability theories.

New Orleans broke from the pack of cities in October when it became the first municipality to file. The suit, based on Louisiana's products liability statutes, asserts that guns manufactured and sold without locking devices or adequate safety warnings are defective. The suit seeks reimbursement for the city's cost of providing the necessary emergency units, police officers, and medical services in response to shootings. It names gun manufacturers, gun associations, and area pawn shops as defendants. (Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No. 98-18578 (La., Orleans Parish Dist. Ct. filed Oct. 30, 1998).)

The strategy was developed by Metairie, Louisiana, attorney Wendell Gauthier, an architect of antitobacco litigation. Gauthier joined with the Legal Action Project of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington, D.C.

New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial's decision to sue came after a close friend, jazz musician Raymond Miles, was killed. "The continuing senseless deaths of children and other citizens make it very difficult for me to sit around a table and discuss and negotiate as thousands of handguns are pumped into our streets every year," Morial said.

Two weeks later, Chicago filed suit using a local public nuisance statute as the legal basis for its $433 million claim. The suit asserts the gun manufacturers and the suburban gun dealers sell guns with the knowledge that they will be used in crimes. (Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 98 CH 15596 (Ill., Cook County Cir. Ct. filed Nov. 12, 1998).)

Chicago has highly restrictive laws that prohibit gun ownership unless the handgun was registered before March 30, 1982. But retailers set up shop right outside the city limits. Between August and November 1998, chicago police officers, posing as criminals, were able to buy 171 guns.

The gun manufacturers, distributors, and gun shops create a public nuisance because they "knowingly design, market, and distribute firearms in order to facilitate their illegal entry into and possession in Chicago, where they are illegal to possess, and where they often are used in the commission of crimes," the suit states.

"We would fully support the prosecution of dealers who made illegal sales. That's a no-brainer," said Doug Painter, a spokesman for The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute based in Newtown, Connecticut. Painter argues that manufacturers sell guns to federally licensed dealers. "The idea that our industry sells to anyone and everyone is untrue," he said.

The legal theories being used in the municipal cases are already being tested in individual suits. Last fall, an Alameda County, California, jury decided Beretta U.S.A. Corp. should not be held liable for the 1994 accidental shooting death of 14-year-old Kenzo Dix. The suit claimed the gun was sold without adequate safety warnings, but the jury found that the gun was not defective. (Dix v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 750681-9 (Cal., Alameda County Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 1998).)

"There is no gun made that cannot be locked," said Jeff Reh, general counsel for Beretta U.S.A. "The parent who owned the firearm in question knew that trigger locks and lockable gun cases exist, and he chose not to use one."

Dennis Henigan of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence said the case gained ground for the anti-gun movement because it was the first time a judge allowed a gun manufacturer to be tried in front of a jury.

In individual cases, the gun industry defense focuses on the negligent conduct of the gun owner, Henigan said, adding that manufacturers can't use the argument in the cities' suits because of the large number of incidents involved.