Regulating Firearms as Consumer Products

"In a society that prides itself on making medicine bottles that cannot be opened by young children, we still permit handguns to be made that can readily be discharged by the very young.     The safe design of handguns is not regulated by the government.” ¹ –Stephen P. Teret and Daniel W. Webster, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy and Research

Under the law, firearms are considered a “dangerous instrumentality”² and by design are deadly. Understanding that firearms are indeed dangerous, over 50% of the American public erroneously believes that firearms are already regulated by the government for health and safety. ³  In fact they are not.

 In 1968, Congress effectively banned the import of small, poorly made, unreliable, and inexpensive guns, often known as "Saturday Night Specials," by enabling the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (ATF) to develop minimum size, design, and performance standards for all imported pistols.⁴  While these standards were developed in order to protect the public from potentially dangerous imported handguns, domestically manufactured firearms were exempted from these standards.  The results of the introduction of these standards were two-fold: more domestic “Saturday night special” manufacturers entered the market, and foreign manufacturers created subsidiaries in the U.S. in order to keep a foothold in the U.S. market.⁵

 Congress subsequently created the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972 to protect Americans from dangerous consumer products through regulation of design, manufacturing process and marketing of consumer products.  The enabling legislation exempted firearms from regulation with the result that firearms and tobacco stand alone as the only two categories of consumer products in the United States not subject to federal health and safety oversight.

 Subsequent to the creation of the CPSC, Americans have enjoyed unprecedented freedom from preventable death and injury, in large part as a result of the regulations imposed on consumer products.  Additional consumer benefit has accrued as well from the growing understanding among regulated manufacturers that their best interests may also be served by careful design that accounts for user safety, thereby giving customers an increased confidence in their product line and reducing exposure to liability.

 Powerful lobbying by special interest groups resulted in the original exemption from CPSC oversight for the firearms industry, and it continues to play a significant role in maintaining this exemption, even in the face of clear evidence that regulating guns as consumer products would reduce the incidence of firearm death and injury in America without subjecting the gun industry to undue economic harm or hurting law abiding gun owners. 

 As an initiative to regulate guns, as consumer products would require legislative action at the federal and/or state level, achieving this outcome will be a difficult hurdle to clear, but alternative options have emerged.  With a powerful gun lobby standing firmly in their way and few other options, gun violence prevention advocates have taken their cause to a new venue: the courts.  Taking a cue from successful tobacco litigation, both private individuals and public entities have brought suit against the firearms industry, in a practice known as firearm litigation. 

 This section of our report describes both the ways in which consumer product safety oversight can help reduce gun injury and death and the goals of current firearm litigation.

 Oversight

 Before a manufacturer can bring a teddy bear to market, the product must meet federally mandated safety standards for sharp edges and points, small parts, hazardous materials, flammability, and other potential dangers under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).⁶  Such standards seek to ensure that products that might pose a threat to the health and safety of the public are identified and prevented from posing an unreasonable risk.   Consumer product safety oversight includes setting manufacturing, marketing and distribution standards, monitoring compliance with the standards, and enforcing them.   Enforcement can include requiring recalls, repairs, and/or replacements for defective products and the imposition of fines or the seeking of criminal sanctions or injunctive enforcement. 

 Consumer product safety regulations as they would apply to firearms can be generally categorized in three areas: design, marketing, and distribution.

Design: Regulations addressing design of a consumer product address those factors that might cause harm to the owner, the user, or those who may inadvertently come in contact with the product. While many people use firearms for target shooting, firearms were originally and continue to be designed specifically to inflict injury or death to an animal or person. However, as with any potentially dangerous consumer product, whenever possible, risks of unintentional misuse must be taken into account and minimized through design. To regulate firearms in such a way as to prevent them from performing the function for which they were designed is not the goal of consumer product safety oversight. However, it is the goal to ensure that firearms are designed in such a way that they discharge only when intended , do not not misfire, and are not unreasonably accessible to unauthorized users. Specific design features which must be addressed to minimize these risks include the following:

• Load indicators:  Cameras indicate to the user whether or not they are loaded with film, so that the user does not risk exposing the film by opening the camera. It would seem that if this logical design feature can be implemented to prevent such a trivial event as the mistaken exposure of a roll of film, then its equivalent in the design of firearms is long overdue, since an individual who unknowingly handles a loaded firearm puts himself or herself and anyone in the immediate area at risk for serious injury or death. A 1991 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report that examined 107 accidental shootings in 1988 in which the shooter was thought to have believed that the gun was unloaded found that 23% of such shootings might have been prevented by a loaded chamber indicator.⁷  Based on their research, the authors concluded that nationwide, 345 unintentional firearm deaths could have been prevented by loaded chamber indicators in 1988.  The first patent for a loaded chamber indicator was awarded in 1888, yet loaded chamber indicators are available in only 11% of pistols.⁸

• Magazine disconnects/safeties:  A magazine disconnect is a device that prevents a pistol from discharging if the magazine (the small case that holds ammunition and is inserted into the handle of the pistol, also known as a “clip”) is removed. These mechanisms are potentially more effective than loaded chamber indicators because they do not require user intervention to be effectively employed. In a recent national survey, respondents were asked whether a pistol could be fired if the ammunition magazine is removed.  Although many people might dismiss as common knowledge the fact that a pistol with the magazine removed may still contain a bullet in the chamber which can readily be fired, this survey found that more than a third of respondents either thought that pistol could not be fired (20.3%) or responded that they did not know (14.5%).⁸  This survey is significant because a substantial number of unintentional gun injuries and deaths involve circumstances in which the user is unaware that a gun is loaded. In such cases, ignorance can be deadly. Although magazine disconnect technology is feasible and inexpensive (the technology was patented in 1911 and is available in a number of relatively inexpensive pistols) a recent study of 257 models of pistols found that this technology was available in only 14% of the pistols studied.⁸

• Trigger pressure:  The amount of pressure or strength required to pull the trigger of a firearm varies by model.  A 1995 study found that over 60% of firearms have a trigger-pull setting of five pounds or less.⁹  The same study found 85% of 3 to 4 year olds were capable of firing a gun with a trigger-pull of five pounds or less.  Target shooting enthusiasts assert that the easier it is to pull the trigger, the more accurate your aim will be.  Success in target shooting can often be measured in small increments that are not important for hunting, military/law enforcement, and self-defense purposes.

• Defective design:  To ensure reasonable user safety it is essential that firearms be responsibly designed to fulfill their function reliably and as expected.  Firearms should not fire when dropped, nor should the barrel explode when the firearm is fired.  The safety lever (that “unlocks” the gun) should not be positioned so near the lever that releases the magazine that the user could accidentally drop the magazine when intending to release the safety.  Firearms should predictably fire every time the user intends it to fire – a particularly important consideration in self-defense or law enforcement. Design issues extend to after-market safety devices such as trigger locks as well.  In February of 2001, CPSC released a report detailing testing of 32 trigger locks, and found that all but two of the locks tested could be opened without a key.¹⁰  CPSC is currently working with gun manufacturers, trigger lock manufacturers, and the American Society for Testing and Materials, to develop standards for trigger locks. Although several states require that firearms are either sold or secured with trigger locks or other safety devices, only California has developed comprehensive standards for such devices.
  
  
• Attractiveness for Criminal Use:  Some firearms currently available for sale to the general public have no reasonable utility for legal civilian purposes or incorporate design features whose attractiveness for criminal use may pose an unreasonable hazard to the general public.  For example, certain types of firearms are particularly prone to criminal use because they are easily concealed, particularly lethal, inexpensive, or a combination of any or all of these attributes.  Certain firearms are currently designed with some plastic components in an attempt to make them less likely to be detected by metal detectors and/or recognized by luggage scanning machines while others are designed with a finish that resists fingerprints.  The serial numbers on firearms are often placed in easily accessible locations, such that they can be defaced or obliterated, rendering a gun more difficult to trace.  And, some bullets are specifically designed to pierce armor such as the armored vests worn by law enforcement officers.
  
  Although legislation banning assault weapons is already in place, a highly lethal weapon that does not fit the technical definition of an assault weapon, the .50 caliber rifle, is becoming increasingly popular.  Although the perceived threat posed by the availability of this weapon on the open market was originally tempered by the prohibitively high price of these weapons new .50 caliber rifles typically ranged in price from $4,000 to $7,000¹¹ used models were available at less cost. And, an increase in the number of manufacturers of the .50 caliber has resulted in these weapons being available new for as little as $2,000.¹²  A .50 caliber model firearm is capable of hitting targets accurately from 2,000 yards and is “effective,” meaning that it will inflict damage upon its target but may not be accurate, at 7,500 yards,¹¹ and is capable of destroying armored vehicles when special incendiary ammunition is used. ¹¹   Because firearms are not regulated as consumer products, this weapon of war is treated no differently than the .22 rifle that is often used by young people for target shooting and hunting small game. In fact, while federal law prohibits persons under 21 years of age from purchasing handguns, 18 year olds may legally purchase .50 calibers.  Although there have been no documented criminal or terrorist incidents involving .50 caliber rifles in the U.S., the .50 caliber has been used by Irish Republican Army operatives to assassinate British soldiers and Irish constables in Northern Ireland,^13,14 and has been seized from an international drug cartel, ¹¹ as well as extremist anti-government and militia groups here in the U.S.¹¹  Additionally, according to the U.S. Justice Department, a member of the Al-Queda network of fugitive terrorist Osama Bin Laden legally purchased 25 .50 caliber rifles in the United States in 1989.¹⁵ 

• Personalized Guns:  With personalized gun technology, a firearm will operate only for an authorized user. While these technologies would be likely to have their greatest effect in reducing suicides by young people and accidental shootings, they could also serve to render stolen guns useless.  Personalization technology is still in the developmental phase.  Requiring personalization of firearms cannot, of course, impact firearm injury or death from more than 200 million¹⁶ firearms already in private hands in the United States.

Marketing: Regulation of marketing practices of consumer products is an accepted part of American life. Dangerous drugs may only be obtained by prescription by the general public or may be unavailable to the general public entirely while remaining available for research.  If prescription drugs are directly marketed to the public the advertiser must also inform the audience of the risks associated with the use of the drug.  Hazardous materials available to the public must be accompanied by an appropriate warning as well as by instructions about how to handle accidental ingestion of the product.  Many hazardous materials are only available to particular licensed individuals or businesses.   Cigarettes may not be sold or marketed to minors.  As with other consumer products, marketing concerns about firearms and firearm accessories in regard to consumer product safety generally fall into two categories:  what is marketed to the general public and how the product is marketed.

What is marketed for sale to the public:  Current consumer product safety regulations for other consumer products recognize appropriate use considerations.  Appropriate uses for firearms are generally found to be sports shooting (hunting and target shooting), self-defense, and military purposes.  Using the reasoning applied to other consumer products, consumer product safety regulation of firearms may include banning the sale to the general public of firearms that have no or little legal civilian use, reserving those products for military and/or law enforcement use.  It can be reasonably argued, for example, that an individual who wishes to use a firearm for home defense has a legitimate need for a firearm that will stop an intruder, but no legitimate need for a firearm sniper rifle that when equipped with special ammunition is capable of disabling tanks, or for bullets capable of piercing the armor typically worn by police officers.

How the Product is Marketed to the public:  Generally, consumer product safety regulation in this area seeks to ensure that particular products are not advertised deceptively and/or unfairly.  With regard to the firearms industry, advertising should not prey on the fear of consumers by raising the specter of increasingly unlikely criminal attacks, it should not suggest that a firearm will increase the safety of the buyer and his or her family when research shows that just the opposite is true, ^{17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25} it should acknowledge the risks that firearms ownership poses for firearms owners and their families, and it should not encourage unsafe storage or use of a firearm.  Additionally, advertising should not portray or support the irresponsible or illegal use of the product, nor point out design features that make the firearm attractive to a criminal market.  

 Several examples of how the firearms industry improperly markets its products can be observed in its advertising.  An advertisement equating a self-defense firearm kept in the home to “homeowner’s insurance”²⁶ implies that a gun makes homes safer, as does the message “Tip the odds in your favor,” ²⁶ while research shows that just the opposite is the case.^{17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25}  An advertisement showing a picture of a gun on a nightstand²⁶ portrays a firearm in a similar way, but also reinforces unsafe gun storage practices. Some firearms currently on the market have been advertised as “resistant to fingerprints” – a marketing device clearly aimed at purchasers who want to avoid leaving evidence that they have used a particular gun, a common concern of those involved in criminal activity using firearms.  The developers of these firearms assert that the resistance to fingerprints is only a by-product of a manufacturing process designed to increase the life of a firearm by rendering it impervious to the detrimental effects of the oils from the users hands.  This defense, of course, raises the question of why the firearm is not advertised on this basis, instead of pointing out its criminal utility.   In any case, a well-made firearm without this feature, given minimal maintenance, can, in the words of firearms expert Massad Ayoob “last forever”.⁴ 

 Distribution: As with other consumer products, firearms distribution involves the movement of the firearm from the point of manufacture to the purchase of the firearm at retail.  Product manufactures in other product areas can and do typically exercise considerable control over the distribution of their products.  A vacuum cleaner manufacturer, for example, may require retail outlets to send sales staff to training sessions, agree to demonstrate the product to customers in a particular manner, and sell products only at the prices set by the manufacturer.  The manufacturer may monitor compliance by the retailer and refuse to conduct business with retailers that violated the terms of the business agreement.

Manufacturers of firearms have detailed information about the distributors of their products.  They may require retailers to adhere to specific pricing schedules and refuse their product to retailers who do not comply.  Firearms manufacturers know which wholesalers and retailers have a history of selling large numbers of firearms that end up in criminal hands. They have this information because ATF contacts the manufacturer of any crime gun that the Bureau is tracing as it seeks to attribute ownership for law enforcement purposes.  Additionally, like any other manufacturers of products intended for public consumption, firearms manufacturers collect comprehensive marketing information that tells them how many firearms a particular community is able to absorb in the legal market. 

 Consumer product safety initiatives regulating distribution of firearms that could be reasonably brought
to bear on firearms manufacturers include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Manufacturers could be required to develop effective inventory control processes.  In 1998 and 1999, FFLs (including retailers, importers, and manufacturers) reported over 27,000 lost or stolen firearms.²⁷  ATF found that roughly 40%, or 11,000, of these missing firearms resulted from inventory discrepancies, record keeping errors, and employee theft (which only becomes apparent when a physical inventory is conducted).  A 1997 “Frontline” report detailed how employees of now defunct junk gun manufacturer Lorcin Engineering stole thousands of guns from the company’s factory and sold them on the illegal market.²⁸  Due to concerns over such incidents, ATF has proposed a rule requiring all FFLs to perform a physical inventory at least once a year.  The enactment of such a rule would be a good start, but for the purposes of quickly identifying and preventing thefts and losses of mass quantities of firearms, a more comprehensive inventory control process is needed, including requiring manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to take appropriate measures to secure their products from theft and loss.  

• Manufacturers could be required to cease distribution to wholesalers or retailers with specified unacceptably high numbers of firearms sold through them that are subsequently used in crime.

• Manufactures could be restrained from supplying particular types of firearms to retailers whose shops are located in a jurisdiction that has banned the sale or possession of that particular weapon.

• Manufacturers could be restrained from supplying firearms to retailers in number greater than the local legal market could be reasonably expected to absorb.

 Case Study in Consumer Product Safety

 The manufacture of "Saturday Night Specials" became an industry within an industry, with a significant number of these guns having been produced by a handful of Southern California companies.²⁹  Because of their low cost and ability to be concealed, these poor quality weapons are attractive to criminals. Recent studies corroborate this claim:

 In 1993, in California, 8 out of 10 handguns most often confiscated in a criminal context by law enforcement were "Saturday Night Specials."³⁰

• In 1995, 6 of the 7 pistols most frequently traced by ATF were manufactured by one of the southern California companies which concentrate almost exclusively on producing these guns.³⁰

• A 1998 study found that individuals with no criminal history or only a minimal criminal history who purchased "Saturday Night Specials" were substantially more likely to be charged with crimes after purchase than individuals with similar criminal histories who purchased other types of handguns. This same study also found that subjects with any criminal history were more likely to purchase "Saturday Night Specials" than individuals with no criminal history.³¹

Several cities and states have enacted legislation banning the manufacture and sale of "Saturday Night Specials" with encouraging results. The case of Maryland, which enacted such a ban in 1988, is particularly promising. A 1999 study of how Maryland's law effected crime gun use in Baltimore found that guns banned in Maryland were more than twice as likely to be the subject of law enforcement trace requests in 15 other major cities in other states included in the study, than in Baltimore.³²  This study suggests that banned guns are used less often in crime than they had been before the ban.  Although ban legislation raises concerns that criminals will simply substitute banned guns with guns still available on the legal market, the Maryland study found no such effect.

Firearm Litigation

 Firearm litigation includes lawsuits brought by both private and public parties, seeking to force industry-wide reform through the threat of financial loss.  While there is a more established history of individuals bringing suit against the firearms industry on behalf of loved ones, state and local governments recently have begun making legal claims that the firearms industry is responsible for the economic and social costs of gun violence. By bringing suit against firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, units of government have attempted to recoup the public costs that are the direct result of firearm violence. These costs include “direct injuries to public property, and outlays for medical care, police investigation, emergency rescue services, increased security at schools and public buildings, costs for coroner and funeral services for unknown victims, pensions, disability benefits, higher prison costs, youth intervention programs, and numerous other costs. Additional costs include lost tax revenues from declining real estate values in neighborhoods beset by gun violence.”³³

 In October of 1998, New Orleans became the first city to file suit against the firearms industry. Since then, over thirty other government entities across the nation have brought suit. The following arguments stand as the basis for claims against the firearms industry:

• Product Liability: As with any consumer product, gun manufacturers can be held liable for design defects when injuries result from product malfunction. For example, in 1995, Remington Arms settled a claim that alleged that certain models of their shotguns contained barrels that were constructed of insufficiently strong steel, and prone to explosion. However, liability is not limited to cases of poor design and workmanship. Manufacturers may also be liable for the foreseeable misuse of their products. In 1998, the City of New Orleans filed suit against the gun industry,³⁴ alleging that the industry markets defective products. Unlike the Remington case, the New Orleans suit did not involve any specific defect or malfunction. Rather, the city argued that the industry was guilty of marketing defective products because it failed to incorporate feasible safety technology into its designs. By incorporating technology such as a magazine disconnect or an internal locking device into its designs, the city argued the industry could prevent countless injuries and deaths.

• “Willful Blindness”: The theory of “willful blindness” rests on the assertion that gun manufacturers are well aware of the illegal market for their products. Despite this knowledge, manufacturers continue to supply the illegal market by engaging in irresponsible and unscrupulous distribution practices. Rather than tightening restrictions on dealers who knowingly and unknowingly divert firearms into the illegal market, manufacturers continue to exploit this secondary market for profit by supplying their products and turning a blind eye to the actions of dealers.

• Negligent Distribution: This theory is a corollary to the willful blindness theory. The notion that manufacturers must bear some responsibility for the distribution of their products is not a radical idea. In any number of industries, manufacturers seek to ensure that their products are brought to market ethically and responsibly by screening and monitoring distributors and only conducting business with distributors who adhere to certain standards and practices.  This is generally not the case with gun manufacturers. This theory holds that many firearms manufacturers take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach with dealers and at times actively exploit corrupt and irresponsible dealers' willingness to engage in illegal sales, in this way knowingly feed an illegal market.

• Negligent Marketing: This litigation approach holds that manufacturers deceptively market handguns as tools of personal safety and home security. Recent research suggests that a gun brought into the home is far more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault, or a suicide attempt, than it is to be used in self-defense.^{17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25}  Despite this evidence, manufacturers not only continue to market guns with the message that guns make individuals and their homes safer, they refuse to even acknowledge the risks that gun ownership carries. Compounding this problem, advertisements encourage unsafe storage practices by showing loaded weapons on nightstands or in drawers.²⁶  Gun manufacturers also bring to market guns that have little or no legitimate civilian use, but are prone to criminal use. This is the case with assault weapons and cheap, easily concealed handguns known as "Saturday Night Specials." In the latter case, manufacturers may carry out a comprehensive marketing strategy of attempting "saturation sales" in high crime areas, where demand for these inexpensive weapons is particularly high.³³

• Public Nuisance: Under the law, the firearms industry's misconduct may be held to be a public nuisance, in that "it significantly interferes with the public's health, safety, welfare, peace, comfort, and convenience."³⁵

 Although these arguments are largely unproven at trial, the specter of litigation has put the firearms industry under immense pressure to reform its practices. In March of 2000, Smith and Wesson, the nation's largest gun manufacturer, agreed to impose stricter controls over its distribution channels and integrate "smart-gun" technology into its designs in exchange for the termination of lawsuits by 15 cities.³⁶  In similar industry moves, Sturm, Ruger & Company instructed its distributors not to make sales at gun shows,³⁷ and Colt Manufacturing ceased its retail firearms operations altogether.³⁸

 In Michigan, both Wayne County and Detroit have filed suit against the gun industry for the recovery of costs incurred in dealing with gun violence. Investigations prior to filing of the suit found that area dealers were quite willing to engage in illegal “straw purchases.”³⁵  Armed with this evidence, Wayne County and Detroit brought suit against gun manufacturers and dealers. The suits, which were consolidated into one, alleged that the industry engaged in negligent distribution practices and created a public nuisance. The negligent distribution claim has since been dismissed, as the presiding judge found that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs under Michigan law.

 However, the public nuisance claim was recognized as a cause for action, and the suit has since survived a challenge based on a statute passed by the Michigan Legislature after the filing of the suits which bars local units of government from bringing civil actions against the gun industry.³⁹ In response to the latter challenge, the presiding judge found that the Legislature’s enactment was unconstitutional and could not be applied retroactively. That ruling is under appeal.

 Michigan’s experience is similar to that of a number of jurisdictions across the country. Complex litigation such as this is typically a drawn out series of legal battles, and the jurisdictions pursuing cases thus far have seen both small victories and setbacks. Of over 30 jurisdictions that have filed suit, 18 have survived motions to dismiss, and seven have had suits dismissed. At this point, it is difficult to speculate on the possible outcomes of these cases. However, regardless of the final outcomes of litigation, in some sense, firearm litigation has already caused the gun industry to reconsider its business practices. While the ultimate goal of reforming industry practices has been one towards which we have already seen incremental gains, as evidenced by the actions of Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Colt, the progression of these cases into the discovery phase will bring perhaps even greater gains for gun violence prevention advocates. The firearms industry, in large part because it is exempt from federal health and safety regulation, remains an industry shrouded from public scrutiny. While the progression of these lawsuits has begun to bring questions about the practices of the gun industry into the public dialogue, the discovery phase of litigation represents the chance at something more tangible: determining whether the industry’s conscious decisions and ongoing practices put the public at risk. As was the case with tobacco litigation, the opportunity to put industry officials under oath and gain access to internal documents may lead to increased accountability of the industry. 

___________________________________________________

Citations: Consumer Product Safety

1)       Teret S et al., Reducing gun deaths in the United States, BMJ, 1999; 318: 1160-1161

2)       Wood v. Groh, No. 81,826, Supreme Court of Kansas, 2000

3)       Smith TW, 1998 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center:  Research Findings, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, May 1999

4)       Gun Control Act of 1968, Section 925 (d) (3)

5)       Diaz T, Making a Killing:  The Business of Guns In America, The New Press, New York, 1999

6)       15 U.S.C. 1261-1278

7)       General Accounting Office, Accidental Shootings:  Many Deaths and Injuries Caused by Firearms Could be Prevented, Washington, DC, 1991

8)       Vernick JS et al., “I didn't know the gun was loaded”: An examination of two safety devices that can reduce the risk of unintentional firearm injuries, Journal of Public Health Policy, 1999; 20(4):427-440

9)       Naureckas SM et al.,  Children's and women's ability to fire handguns, Archives of Ped and Adol Med, 1995; 149:1318-22

10)    Mayer CE, Safety Standards Sought After Gun Locks Fail Test, Washington Post, February 7, 2001

11)    Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Minority Staff Report, “Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons,” May 3, 1999

12)    Diaz T, Voting From the Rooftops:  How the Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden, other Foreign and Domestic Terrorists, and Common Criminals with 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles, Violence Policy Center, 2001

13)    Harnden T, Bandit Country:  The IRA and South Armagh (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1999), pp. 354-55

14)    Daily Record (Scotland), Arsenal Which Threatens Peace, July 3, 2001

15)    The Tampa Tribune, Gun Control Advocates Reload, November 2, 2001

16)    Ludwig J and Cook PJ, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, May 1997

17)    Rushforth NP et al., Accidental firearm fatalities in a metropolitan county (1958-1973), American Journal of Epidemiology, 1975; 100:499-505

18)    Kellerman AL Reay DT, Protection or peril?  An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home.  N Engl J Med, 1986; 314:1557-1560

19)    Kellerman AL et al., Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home, Journal of Trauma, 1998; 42:263-267

20)    Kellerman AL et al., Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes, JAMA, 1995; 273:1759-1762

21)    Kellerman AL et al., Gun ownership as a risk for homicide in the home, N Engl J Med, 1993; 329: 084-1091

22)    Kellerman AL et al., Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership, New England Journal of Medicine, 1992; 327:467-472

23)    Bailey JE et al., Risk factors for violent death of women in the home, Arch Intern Med, 1997; 157(7):777-782

24)    Cummings P et al., The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide, Am J Public Health, 1997; 87(6):974-978

25)    Hemenway D et al., Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys, Inj Prev, 2000; 6(4):263-267

26)    Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Filing on Deceptive Gun Advertising Petition, February 14, 1996

27)    Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 167, August 28, 2000

28)    Frontline, Hot Guns, PBS, Air Date:  June 3, 1997

29)    Wintemute GJ, Ring of fire: The handgun makers of Southern California, Violence Prevention Research Program, Sacramento, CA, 1994

30)    Wintemute GJ, The relationship between firearm design and firearm violence: handguns in the 1990s, JAMA, 1996; 275:1749-1753

31)    Wintemute GJ, et al., Weapons of choice: previous criminal history, later criminal activity, and firearm preference among legally authorized young adult purchasers of handguns, Journal of Trauma, 1998; 44:155-160

32)    Vernick JS, et al. Effects of Maryland's law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns, Injury Prevention 1999; 5:259-263

33)    Seibel B, City Lawsuits Against The Gun Industry:  A Roadmap For Reforming Gun Industry Misconduct, St. Louis University Public Law Review, Volume 18, 1999

34)    Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No. 98-18578, Orleans Parish Civil District Court

35)    Archer v. Arms Technology, Inc., No. 99-912658 NZ, Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan

36)    Smith & Wesson, Clarification, March 17, 2000, Settlement Document Agreement

37)    Associated Press, Gun Maker Wants No Gun Shows Sales, January 15, 2000

38)    Janofsky M, Gun Producers, Under Assault, Turn to Politics, New York Times, January 18, 2000

39)    MCL 28.435