COLUMN: Rendell, suing the messenger

From Michael Brus', " Narcissist's Holiday," Fall '99 From Michael Brus', " Narcissist's Holiday," Fall '99Next Wednesday, Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell will go to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In addition to the usual schmoozing and speechifying, Rendell has another agenda: to stick it to gun manufacturers where it hurts -- in civil court. "This is an idea that will get a considerable amount of unofficial discussion at the U.S. Conference of Mayors," Rendell spokesperson Kevin Feeley said. "Filing suit against gun manufacturers forces them to deal with the issues. A lawsuit of this nature has a purpose: to get quick action." One action Rendell does not want, Feeley said, is to put the gun manufacturers out of business. The mayor wants the manufacturers to agree to a series of safety regulations, such as fingerprint sensors on triggers, maximum magazine sizes and a purchasing limit of one gun a month per person. Rendell has been meeting with the gun makers over the last year, but so far they have been reluctant to make these changes voluntarily, arguing that they lack the technology for fingerprint sensors and that limits on magazine sizes and gun purchases would unfairly restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. "[Rendell's] view is that the gun manufacturers haven't done much of anything with respect to stopping gun violence," Feeley said. "So now it's time to go to the next level.... What we're trying to do with all means possible is to force them to deal with the issues of gun violence." Due to plunging national crime rates and the reforms of a new police commissioner, the number of murders in Philadelphia dropped by about 50 last year, to just under one a day. But this level is still one of the highest in the nation. Inner-city murder rates are at crisis proportions, and have been for decades. The Penn students who witnessed the high-noon, gangland-style execution of a South Philadelphia resident in front of the Palestra last spring can testify to that. If the gun manufacturers settle to avoid legal costs, Rendell and his fellow mayors will undoubtedly have saved lives -- exactly how many no one can say. As New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial -- who has already filed suit -- said in The Philadelphia Inquirer recently, "If this effort saves one life, it's worth it." I disagree. Given infinite resources and an unlimited public willingness to curtail freedom of choice, government regulation could save many more lives in other areas. It could sharply reduce pollution levels, which would improve health at the cost of economic efficiency. It could slash the speed limit, which would save lives at the cost of commuter time. Government regulation almost always reduces risk by curtailing choice; how to balance risk and choice is the perennial policy question, one that should be decided democratically. No matter how bloody the streets of Philadelphia are, there is something profoundly undemocratic about using lawsuits to make policy. When I asked Feeley why the mayor couldn't just lobby for gun-safety legislation, Feeley asked, "Lobby where? The gun lobby has a very powerful impact. Would you want to go to Harrisburg, in a state where the NRA has more members than in any state save California?" I happen to agree with Rendell that the risk to public safety of Pennsylvania's relatively lax gun laws outweighs the freedoms enjoyed by gun users. But this is a decision for the voters to make, not me or Rendell. Currently the GOP controls the governorship, both houses of the legislature and both U.S. Senate seats. In other words, the voters have sided with the gun lobby. For the mayor to resort to legal extortion to get his way is not just unsporting, it is flatly undemocratic. It is he, and not the NRA, who is the special interest here. And Rendell's tactics may come back to haunt him. Because the product liability case against gun manufacturers is weaker than it was against cigarette manufacturers -- after all, gun makers do not advocate homicide -- the gun industry may have a better case and may not surrender as quickly as the tobacco industry did. Whether the gun industry capitulates or not, Rendell's litigation will only polarize the debate on gun control. If the gun manufacturers settle or lose in the courts, gun rights advocates will feel cheated and may radicalize -- much as the pro-life movement did after sudden reversal of Roe v. Wade. If the gun makers win, gun rights could become a powerful campaign issue for the Republicans in 2000. When the national GOP comes to town for its convention two years from now, don't be surprised if the chickens come home to roost on tort lawyer Ed Rendell.