Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers Suffers Major Defeat

In filing the first-of-its-kind lawsuit in October of 1998, New Orleans officials and attorneys acknowledged that their ultimate goal was to pressure firearms makers into accepting municipally-imposed restrictions on their businesses. In response to the suit, however, the Louisiana legislature and Governor Mike Foster acted quickly to assert and protect the state's authority to regulate firearms by enacting a law that prohibits Louisiana cities from suing firearms manufacturers for the lawful sale and distribution of firearms.

In its decision today, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the state's preemption statute could be applied retroactively to dismiss the City's suit without violating either the United States or the Louisiana state constitutions.

The Supreme Court ruled the New Orleans suit was ". . . an indirect attempt to regulate [at the local level] the lawful design, manufacture, marketing and sale of firearms." The Court said the preemption law was passed "in the interest of the public" and that state regulation of firearms "is of vital interest to the citizens of Louisiana" which "preserves the public safety and welfare." The Court noted that municipal suits that attempt to regulate the firearms industry would result in haphazard and inconsistent rules which would threaten public safety.

We are pleased that the Louisiana Supreme Court has a greater respect for the authority of the state legislature and the constitutionally prescribed legislative process than does the Mayor of New Orleans and his Handgun Control, Inc. allies," said Robert T. Delfay, president and chief executive officer of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the major trade association for the firearms and recreational shooting sports industry.

Since the New Orleans suit, some 30 similar suits have been filed across the country. Of these, 14 have been decided, with 13 being fully or partially dismissed. In addition to Louisiana, 23 other state legislatures have enacted preemption laws to protect their authority to regulate firearms and to preclude politically motivated and inconsistent regulations threatening public safety. (posted April 2001)
 

Our National Forests
Paul W. Hansen, Izaak Walton Leaque of America

As both sides prepare for an all out legal, administrative and legislative war over this issue, the Izaak Walton League of America would like to suggest a common sense solution that would be better for the environment, the forest products industry, local communities and our National Forests.

We believe that roadless areas should remain roadless, with some allowance for emergency entry using temporary roads where unnaturally high fuel loads pose extreme fire danger to watersheds, private land or endangered species. We believe that much more wood can be harvested more responsibly from other parts of the National Forests.

Roadless areas are roadless for a reason - there is very little commercial timber in these areas and the expense of getting to it requires significant taxpayer subsidies. While these areas have very low value for timber, they have very high value for watershed protection, recreation and wildlife. This is why over 2 million Americans wrote the Forest Service in favor of this proposal, and why 83 percent of the nation's hunters who use western forests also support this idea - if emergency management is allowed.

Other areas in the National Forests have the highest value for timber production and are already roaded. It is in these areas where timber production should be focused. Most were logged many years ago for the simple reason that they are the most productive areas and have since regrown. Done right, timber can be harvested from these public lands much more sustainably and cost-effectively than in roadless areas.

Reliable growth and yield data, and science-based ecological evaluations, confirm that this portion of the national forests alone could sustainably produce around 6 billion board feet of timber per year. This is 50 times more wood than could ever be harvested from the roadless areas - at much less cost to the environment and the taxpayer.

The remaining forest should be managed to prevent fires, protect watersheds and restore the fire-dependent landscapes of the West - much of which is overly dense due to 95 years of fire suppression. Environmentalists, wildlife managers and the forest products industry should get together and precisely define "stewardship harvest," and then begin the necessary thinning of these forests. By contracting for the thinning rather than selling stumpage, then decking and selling the wood separately as a byproduct of the restoration activity, any incentive to overcut is removed. Scarce remaining stands of old growth timber can and should be avoided.

Because "stewardship" harvests have been a source of poor forest practices in the past, it will be essential to have careful definitions and outside assessments to monitor these projects. This will be a difficult task, but if the two sides would put as much energy into this effort as they would a jihad with one another, it could be done.

In fact, stewardship harvests on National Forests have been developed cooperatively between local communities, foresters and conservationists in several locations with great success. This concept is already the stated policy of the forest products industry's largest trade association and was fundamental to the $1.6 billion fuel reduction agreement between the western governors and the Clinton Administration last September.

This scenario could be the basis for an extraordinary opportunity to both protect the roadless areas from too many roads and the forests from too many fires. It could provide a consistent, sustainably produced supply of wood fiber to industry and the communities that depend on this industry. Perhaps most importantly, it would provide some end to the partisan bickering that has brought gridlock to national forest management.

(posted April 2001)