In 2005, Congress passed a bill protecting gunmakers against liability lawsuits stemming from the use of their firearms. But before then manufacturers testifying in such cases displayed an almost casual disregard for where their guns might wind up. The
New York Times uncovered thousands of pages of such testimony, some of it marked confidential, in archives at legal firms and courthouses around the nation:
The president of Sturm, Ruger was not interested in knowing how often the police traced guns back to the company’s distributors, saying it “wouldn’t show us anything.”
And a top executive for Taurus International said his company made no attempt to learn if dealers who sell its products were involved in gun trafficking on the black market. “I don’t even know what a gun trafficker is,” he said.
If that claim were true, he would be the dumbest gunmaker on the planet. Although manufacturers and their lobbyists say they want to see existing laws better enforced instead of new laws passed, they have a decades-long record of neutering existing laws. They currently are in court fighting a rule passed in 2011 that retailers must report multiple sales of certain rifles for three years. That sensible rule has applied to handguns since 1968.
The Times also noted that a former lawyer for the National Rifle Association, Robert Ricks, had testified that gunmakers worked assiduously to block any voluntary efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to silence any advocates of reform within the industry.
Executives swore they didn't know if their guns had ever been used in crimes and they made it obvious in the archival documents that they didn't care. Reporters Mike McIntire and Michael Luo wrote that the makers didn't believe a single individual's purchase of several "crime guns" traced to one dealer indicated any possible problems. For instance, Charles Guevremont, the president of the Browning, said if a retail gun dealer became the subject of several trace requests by law enforcement authorities, it wouldn't spur his company to take notice.
Several executives said, sometimes defiantly, that it wasn't up to the gunmakers to enforce the laws.
There was an exception to the parade of we-don't-know-and-we-don't-care-and-it's-not-our-job attitudes:
Ugo Gussalli Beretta, a scion of the family of Italian firearms makers [...] indicated that he did not understand how easy it was to buy multiple guns in the United States, compared with his home country. Questioned by a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, he said he believed—incorrectly—that Beretta U.S.A. had a policy requiring its dealers to first determine if there was “a legitimate need” for someone to buy so many guns.
Asked why he thought that, Mr. Beretta replied, “Common sense.”
Clearly, there is a scarcity of that in some quarters.