Government's Smith & Wesson Lawsuit Unconstitutional

3--18--2000

The news media announced that the federal government managed to get Smith & Wesson, well-known firearm maker, to agree to various, previously objectionable, terms and proposals in future manufacturing and distribution of its products. Gun control issues aside, hardly a peep has been heard from America to challenge the vastly more important issue at hand.

The various levels of government already possess the nation's most coercive power. Lawmakers can enact laws and those who disobey or refuse to comply can be arrested, fined, and imprisoned (even executed in the case of capital crimes). Under what scenario should any entity possessing such powers require the use of a civil lawsuit to accomplish its avowed purposes? The clear answer is: "none."

Yet, with the Feds leading the way, endless lawsuits have been spawned by governmental branches and agencies, utilizing all the nefarious tools of the lawsuit trade to attain goals that may or may not have even existed as statute or constitutional law.

With the mere threat of long, painful lawsuits by HUD, the Treasury Department, and various local governments, the gun maker caved in and agreed to numerous demands such as the application of trigger-guards and firing prevention systems based on owner recognition. Customers have never demanded such items; the marketplace is not making the decisions here. Backed by a pro-gun control administration, the whole shenanigan is a blatantly unconstitutional endrun designed to do what could not be done through legislation in the U.S. Congress. Regardless of one's feelings towards gun control, the endeavor should raise warning flags in the minds of all concerned with preservation with our basic system of government. Legislatures are supposed to make laws, not governmental agencies.

If you can't accomplish what you want politically, bludgeon your target into submission with a lawsuit. Where will it end?

As an aside, the issue also speaks to the support of loser pays laws, which are just as badly needed when the government sues someone (perhaps moreso) as they are in other tort fields.

These ominous occurences are un-representative terrors typical of totalitarian systems. Where are the supporters of freedom who should be loudly crying against such travesties of constitutionality?