SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

Gun manufacturers and retailers who sell "Saturday Night Specials" are liable for injuries and deaths caused by the cheap pistols during crimes, Maryland's highest court ruled yesterday.

In the unanimous decision by the Maryland court of appeals, judge John Eldridge wrote for the court:

We conclude that it is entirely consistent with public policy to hold the manufacturers and marketers of Saturday Night Special handguns strictly liable to innocent persons who suffer gunshot injuries from the criminal use of their products.

... in light of the ever-growing number of deaths and injuries due to such handguns being used in criminal activity.

The hole in the honorable justices reasoning is large enough to drive a logging truck through. If this absurd ruling stands, legitimate gun manufacturers will go out of business, and hand guns will only be available from clandestine factories whose devotion to quality will be non-existent. This case smells like another gun control maneuver in a new disguise. Since the anti-hand gun lobby has failed to rally the voters against gun ownership, then perhaps a lateral approach in the courts will work.

After all, many crazy things emanate from the judicial system. Remember the ruling in California where a would-be burglar fell through the skylight of the school building he was burgling; and then successfully sued the school district for damages? It looks as if the gun control lobby has learned a new way to legalize theft without consulting voters or te legislature. I wonder who paid the shop-keepers legal fees?

To hold the maker of a product liable for the actions of those who purchase it is to ignore reality, and it's plain dumb. The justices must be on drugs.

Have you ever seen or heard of the movie "Texas Chain Saw Massacre"? It's a grade Z horror flick where the bad guy wounds, maims and slaughters pretty girls and other unfortunates with a chain saw. If such a crime reached the Maryland courts could we expect the justices to hold the chain saw manufacturer liable? If the justices are to be consistent, they would have no other choice.

And what about automobiles? Prosecuting attorneys are beginning to charge drunk drivers with murder when fatalities occur. So why don't the victim's survivors sue Ford Motor Company, and the local dealership? Shouldn't they be held liable? They manufactured and sold a product that, just like hand guns, could be used either for innocent purposes, or to maim and kill.

What about knives? What about hammers? Rat poison? What about anything that could be used to wound and murder human beings? The list is endless, and equally endless will be the confusion and loss of self-responsibility among those who are victims of this kind of barbaric "justice."

Justice Eldridge said that the liability ruling is warranted in light of the increasing number of deaths and injuries related to criminal use of hand guns. Does he mean to say that if those deaths and injuries were kept at a minimum level there would be no liabiltiy?

Apparently, Maryland law describes in detail what a "Saturday Night Special" is. I believe it has something to do with the price of the weapon. Does this mean that when a would be armed robber buys an expensive, quality gun, there will be no liability on the part of the manufacturer? How much does a smart robber have to pay for his weapon so it won't be defined by the government as "cheap"? A hundred dollars? Five hundred dollars?

Gun makers and sellers will have to protect themselves from a predatory judiciary by selling only expensive guns. Does this mean that poor people, who can't afford high priced weapons will not be able to defensively arm themselves because Maryland government precludes the sail of inexpensive guns? I can afford a five hundred dollar hand gun, and perhaps you can too, but what about a poor family in a tough neighborhood who can barely afford the rent?

Why are there racial overtones in Maryland's legal definition of "Saturday Night Special"? The term comes from "Niggertown Saturday Night." It's nothing new, but it's always shameful to find this kind of racism encoded into law.

Of the millions of hand guns owned in the country, most are never actually used, but serve as good insurance against violent criminals. Occasionally, perhaps more frequently than measurable, a hand gun plays a vital role in warding off the intentions of the criminal minded. In these cases, do the beneficiaries of a hand gun's usefulness owe the manufacturer and marketer money?

To be consistent with the Maryland ruling, an award, the opposite of "damages" should be tendered. Why should gun makers be required to pay money damages when their products are used to someone's detriment, and yet not be financially rewarded when their products are used to someone's benefit?

The justices may be "esteemed and honorable," but they lack a basic understanding of simple logic. They need to get their feet back on the ground, and take an honest, ethical and direct approach to reality. A weapons manufacturer in Europe, which produces a product available to anyone in the world who wants it, is not responsible for the actions of the unknown persons who purchase their guns. It is beyond their control as to whether a positive, beneficial use, or a violent and destructive use is made of their product.

Permit me to state the obvious. When an item of property changes hands, the responsibility for how the property is used changes hands too. When something is sold, traded or given to a new owner, any liability associated with ill-use also passes to the new owner.

The manufacturer and retail marketer of the gun were responsible as to how it was used only when it was in their possession, and it is my understanding that neither party engaged in armed robbery. If the justices wish to determine who is responsible for the bullet holes in the shop-keeper, they need look no further than the man who fired the gun in the attempted robbery.