May 19, 2000

House Votes to Prevent Government Favorable Treatment for Smith & Wesson
Go Ahead, Make My Day
Fourth Amendment Sneak Attack

House Votes to Prevent Government Favorable Treatment for Smith & Wesson

The House voted yesterday to block the Defense Department from giving preferential contracting treatment to Smith & Wesson, the Washington Post reports. Last March, Smith & Wesson acquiesced to a host of "safety" regulations rather than suffer a Clinton administration lawsuit. The vote comes as part of a broad new Republican effort to prevent any government preferential treatment toward the gun manufacturer. Republicans hope to "cut off funding for a commission that would implement the pact, as well as...block individual agencies from favoring Smith & Wesson," the Post reports. In explaining Republican opposition to the March deal between the administration and Smith & Wesson, Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) commented that "this is a terrible precedent to set, that any time the president can't get his legislative agenda he will legislate through litigation."

In "When Theft Masquerades as Law," Cato Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Robert A. Levy explains that "the gun suits aren't intended to go to trial. In fact, HUD's threat to coordinate litigation by 3,200 public housing authorities, on top of the claims filed by 29 cities and counties, points to a settlement, not a trial. Secretary Cuomo and his minions understand well that the smallish gun industry can't afford to defend itself--even against unfounded suits--in the face of such overwhelming [legal] firepower." See also "The Extortion Approach to Regulation," by Cato director of regulatory studies Edward Hudgins. "A third approach to regulations is emerging," he writes. "When the road to regulation via legislation, bureaucratic process or even court rulings is blocked, governments can use their powers [to bring lawsuits] to harass, threaten and intimidate industries."

Go Ahead, Make My Day

Clint Eastwood was in Washington yesterday at the invitation of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to testify that business owners should be permitted 90 days to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act before being subject to lawsuit. Under the current policy, a person who thinks he has suffered from a facility not up to specifications has an immediate right of action. Eastwood has been harangued for the past three years by wheelchair-bound plaintiff Diane Zum Brunnel, who alleges that his Mission Ranch Hotel in California didn't have an adequate bathroom during her 1996 visit. Eastwood is fuming about trial lawyers, telling the Washington Post yesterday that "I've been a victim of one of these groups of attorneys that have been doing this to every business owner they can sue, especially this lawyer [Paul Rein] who has been running his fee up to $576,000."

Ed Hudgins, Cato's director of regulatory studies, writes in "Handicapping Freedom" that "if Congress is serious about lifting the regulatory burden from the economy, it must consider major changes in, if not outright repeal of, the ADA."

In "EEOC, Supreme Court Open Floodgates for Disability Claims," (pdf) James M. Taylor offers a lucid explanation of the problems with disability law, and the perversions to it decreed by the Supreme Court.

Fourth Amendment Sneak Attack

David Kopel of the Independence Institute has an alarming article posted on National Review Online about a Department of Justice measure inserted into a broad methamphetamine bill that will "authorize federal agents to stealthily enter people's homes, search the homes, and not tell anyone." The "Secret Searches" item has already passed the Senate and will be considered by the House next week.

Director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice Timothy Lynch criticizes confrontational and reckless police tactics in "We Own the Night: Amadou Diallo's Deadly Encounter with New York City's Street Crimes Unit."

In "In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule," Lynch argues that "because the exclusionary rule is the only effective tool the judiciary has for preserving the integrity of its warrant-issuing authority, any legislative attempt to abrogate the rule should be declared null and void by the Supreme Court."