To the Editor:
Two events last month confirmed the Second Amendment community’s suspicion that the anti-gun crowd will not stop until Americans are disarmed.
The headline in the November 4th edition of the state’s daily newspaper declares “Advocates: R.I. judges must order more gun surrenders”. Why? The Moms Demand Action subsidiary of Everytown for Gun Safety funded by multi-billionaire and presidential candidate, Michael Bloomberg, said that “over an eight-month period, judges [in Family Court] ordered firearms surrendered in 34 percent of cases where a final protective order was issued.”
Just two years ago Governor Raimondo signed into law a bill that prohibits domestic abusers from owning firearms. At the time gun control advocates wanted to eliminate judicial discretion when issuing temporary or permanent restraining orders.
When the legislation was being debated the anti-gunners were asked whether they had any evidence that those alleged abusers who were allowed to keep their guns had subsequently used one in an act of violence. Their answer was that it was beyond the scope of their analysis. Their current “study” still avoids the question.
Everytown’s lawyer claims that this year “trained volunteers” observed 289 hearings and reviewed 165 court files and found that “judges ordered gun surrenders only in cases where a domestic violence plaintiff specifically made such a request”. Thus, they say, judges are erroneously reading the law. The “Moms” want judicial discretion eliminated.
Also ignored is the fact that a victim of domestic violence is nearly three times more likely to be killed or injured by a knife or blunt instrument than by a gun. But anti-gunners aren’t concerned about facts; they rely on emotions and feelings.
On November 12 the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that allows nine families of victims of the mass shooting in Newtown against Remington Arms Company to go forward notwithstanding that firearm manufacturers are specifically exempt under federal law from being sued under product liability laws.
This civil case was brought under a bizarre reading of a broad Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which bans advertising or promoting illegal activity. Their argument is that if Remington had never manufactured, advertised or sold the rifle Adam Lanza obtained from his mother after he killed her, his victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School would not have been harmed.
A lawyer intimately familiar with the Second Amendment opined that the case would never survive the discovery phase. However, no firearm manufacturer has enough money to defend numerous frivolous lawsuits especially if anti-gun state attorneys general like Massachusetts’ Maura Healey and our own Peter Nehrona join class actions.
I can see the trial lawyers trolling ads on TV now: “Have you had a family member killed by gunfire? A recent Supreme Court ruling allows firearm manufacturers to be held responsible if one of their guns was used to kill a loved one. Contact the law firm of Dewey, Sooem, Ubett and Quick for a free consultation.”
Richard J. August