The Clinton administration has just outdone itself with its latest
outrage of the week. It has announced plans to file a class action suit
on behalf of public housing residents against gun manufacturers.
You may be asking yourself, “Why public housing residents?” The
official reason is that the government is entitled to reimbursement for
the $1 billion it spends annually on security because of the inordinate
number of shootings in public housing projects.
But the real reason is that the federal government would have no
jurisdiction in this matter without using the public housing residents
as pawns in their monomaniacal quest for gun control.
As usual, blame anyone but the responsible parties for the crimes. To
Clinton, it’s the gun manufacturers who are at fault, not those who fire
If this isn’t an artificially trumped-up lawsuit, I’ve never seen
one. It is nothing but a transparent ploy to terrorize the gun industry
into making gun control concessions that this administration couldn’t
achieve through legislation.
James Dorr, an attorney for several gun companies, said that there is
no legal basis for the federal government to sue gun manufacturers when
it has licensed these companies to make and sell guns. Exactly.
Many in the gun industry, who have been cooperating with the ATF “to
get the bad guys,” justifiably feel betrayed by their own government.
“To find out that the very government you’re trying to help is going to
sue you … you just don’t know where to turn,” said Robert Delfay of
the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
What is really scandalous is that while the Clinton administration
claims to be concerned with safety, it has abrogated its responsibility
in the one area most likely to promote safety. A recent Syracuse
University study showed that prosecutions of federal gun crimes were
down by more than 40 percent.
But to me there’s something even more troubling about this lawsuit.
Simply put, it is a perversion of the legal system and another violent
assault on our Constitution. It is an ambulance-chasing power play by
the White House.
We must realize that our unique freedoms are preserved primarily in
two ways: First, by criminal and civil laws preventing individuals from
infringing on the rights of others; and second, the constitutional
limitations imposed on government through the Bill of Rights and the
Separation of Powers Doctrine.
People are quite attuned to many of the criminal and civil laws and
the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Indeed, champions of the
various civil rights, such as free speech, sometimes advocate them with
a near-religious zeal. But they seem to be less aware of the subtle
workings of the Separations of Powers Doctrine and its importance in
guaranteeing our liberties.
The framers understood that one of the best ways to limit
governmental power was to divide and diffuse it among three separate
branches — legislative, executive and judicial — and impose an
intricate scheme of checks and balances between them. With these checks,
each branch is prevented from gaining too much power at the expense of
This administration has been particularly abusive of the Separation
of Powers Doctrine. The president apparently believes his policy aims
are more important than the constitutional safeguards of our liberties.
In other words, the ends justify the means.
That’s why the administration has no hesitation, for example, in:
- refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations aimed
at curbing its numerous abuses of executive power;
- by-passing legislative prerogatives with its expansive Executive
Orders; and, of course,
- using the Justice Department for political ends by fomenting
baseless class action suits against the tobacco industry and gun
manufacturers when Congress failed to regulate these industries
according to its liking.
Regardless of their convictions about the “evils” of tobacco and
guns, Clinton and other liberals must be called on their
freedom-snatching methods of eradicating these “evils.”
Our founding fathers deliberately assigned to Congress the power to
make laws and to courts the power to interpret them. Policy decisions,
such as gun control measures, should be made by the democratically
elected Congress, not by appointed and unaccountable judges.
The next time you hear conservatives bellyaching about Clinton’s
congenital disregard for the rule of law, please remember that they
aren’t just referring to such trifling matters as his perjuries and
obstructions of justice.