Public Policy By Extortion

To the Editor:

The President has introduced the American public to a new weapon in his arsenal: public policy by extortion.

The administration’s settlement agreement with Smith & Wesson was obtained by tactics best described by “Don Corleone” when he said, “Either your signature or your brains will be on this contract.” The President engaged his thugs at Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), HCI’s “legal” arm, to “put a gun to the head of the firearms industry.” Sarah Brady was sent to the National Conference of Mayors last year to solicit as many mayors as she could to bring lawsuits against the firearms industry, all the while promising that VPC would actually prosecute them. Much to Bridgeport’s Mayor Ganim’s chagrin, he found out that although VPC furnished the form complaint and argued the motion to dismiss, the mayor had to disclose that at least $75,000 of taxpayer money was spent in bringing the case.

When VPC’s cases started to be dismissed all over the country, the abuse of the legal system became apparent. The President responded by engaging the firearms industry with more of our tax dollars by threatening to sue them yet again through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The President engaged HCI/VPC to bring these lawsuits because he could not get his policies through Congress. Remember, Congress is made up of the American people’s representatives. We elect them and they represent the will of the American people. The President, not being able to convince the American people to approve his policy, did what he does best, circumvent the process. By engaging HCI/VPC to bring these lawsuits, the President thought to impose his “public policy” by threatening to bankrupt the industry. It is unlikely that any court would have allowed these lawsuits to survive, much less impose the provisions of the settlement agreement. So, by using the power of our tax dollars, the President was successful in implementing his policy over the objections of the American people’s popularly elected representatives in Congress.

So why did Smith & Wesson succumb if the cases against them were so weak? Because in the face of financially crippling litigation defense costs, Smith & Wesson had to answer the question “how much can we afford to spend to be adjudged right?” In this case, the price of being adjudged right was more than Smith & Wesson could afford. The price paid by the American people for the President’s maneuver is, at this point, incalculable. The precedent set affects all lawful industry, not just the firearms industry. Now, simply the threat of lawsuits, backed by the inexhaustible resources of your tax dollars, endows the President with nearly dictatorial power over public policy and more importantly, who may do business in this country. The President’s “victory” is yet another assault by this administration against the Constitution and specifically against the principle of separation of powers. Public policy is rightfully decided in Congress, by the people’s representatives, not by the courts, and certainly not by the President, or his thugs.

Andrew J. Buzzi, Jr

122 Hanover Road, Newtown                                     March 21, 2000

(Andrew J. Buzzi, Jr, is an attorney and founding member of a Connecticut-based firearms owners rights group called GunSafe [www.gunsafe.org].)