tute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. Reprinted with permission.

Fast on the heels of the Senate`s failure to pass a "clean" version of S. 1805--the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act--comes another example of why legislation to protect the firearm industry is so vital.
On March 10, a trial court dismissed with prejudice the entire lawsuit filed against Sturm, Ruger & Company, and other members of the lawful U.S. firearms industry, by the city of Newark, New Jersey.
In a press release on Monday, Ruger said the court dismissed the case because the City of Newark failed to meet any of the requirements of a prior court order.  The plaintiffs would have had to fulfill these requirements in order to file an application to reinstate the complaint before a court-imposed March 1, 2004, deadline.
Commenting on the decision, Ruger President Stephen L. Sanetti said, "While we are pleased to obtain yet another dismissal of these baseless and costly municipal lawsuits, their only genuine resolution will be the enactment of federal preemptive legislation to prevent the filing of such lawsuits arising out of the criminal misuse of lawfully sold, non-defective products.
Clearly, such legislation has widespread bipartisan popular support, and likely would have passed the U.S. Senate recently but for being loaded down with amendments that have nothing to do with its merits.  On behalf of the many thousands of workers in this vital American manufacturing base, the many millions of our customers who use our products honorably and responsibly, and the taxpayers of our cities who should not be burdened with the costs of ill-advised political lawsuits, we urge the reconsideration and prompt enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."
Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Newark

Back to page 1       Home

won`t be allowed to file the lawsuit again.
Despite this victory, if these suits are allowed to continue unabated, the costs associated with  defending itself--now estimated at $150 million--will eventually bankrupt the industry, and thus preclude you from purchasing the means to exercise your Second Amendment rights.  That is why NRA-ILA remains committed to enacting a federal lawsuit preemption law--a law that does not in any way compromise our Second Amendment rights.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has found a new target for its frivolous lawsuits--the United States Justice Department. The Brady Campaign claims the Clinton gun ban is being violated because manufacturers are being allowed by the government (under terms established during the Clinton administration) to replace receivers on pre-ban produced "grandfathered" guns. The law however does not prohibit the manufacturing of receivers or replacement receivers for grandfathered firearms.
Under the Brady Campaign`s reasoning, it would be illegal to build a compliant post-ban semi-automatic firearm if it is built on a receiver manufactured after the ban, that could be configured as an "assault weapon."  It is the accessories attached to the receiver as a finished gun (a concept legally different from "firearm") that determines what is an "assault weapon," not the receiver standing alone. While federal law defines a receiver as a "firearm" for the application of federal law, an "assault weapon" is more than just a "firearm."
This frivolous lawsuit highlights one of the numerous reasons the Clinton gun ban makes no sense--receivers on post-ban and pre-ban guns are exactly the same. The prohibited firearms were banned because of how they look, not how they function.
The lawsuit is about chasing headlines, not enforcing the nation`s laws, and the taxpayer gets to foot the bills.

Benton Gun Club
P. O. Box 139
Benton, AR 72018-0139

U.S. Postage
Permit #509
Benton, AR 72015