Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Won't Block Suit Against Gun Makers
AP ^ | 10/3/5 | Gina Holland

Posted on 10/04/2005 12:05:11 AM PDT by Crackingham

The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital. An appeals court had said the District of Columbia government and individual gun victims — including a man who was left a quadriplegic after being shot in 1997 — could sue under a D.C. law that says gun manufacturers can be held accountable for violence from assault weapons.

The high court had been asked over the summer to use the case to strike down the statute, which gun makers said interfered with their right to sell lawful products. The lawsuit still could be voided by a new federal law, however. The Senate voted in July to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes. Action is pending in the House.

The District of Columbia has strict rules about gun possession, and justices had been told that its law interfered with the gun commerce in other states. Twelve states had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule with gun makers: Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.

"The District of Columbia's statute threatens ... gun manufacturers with draconian penalties based on their lawful out-of-state commercial activity — and on the criminal misconduct of third parties over whom the manufacturers have no control," justices were told in a filing by former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who is now the lawyer for the gun companies.

The case does not involve the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Instead, it challenges the law under the Commerce Clause's ban on "direct regulation" of out-of-state commerce and on the due process clause.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; assaultweapons; banglist; guns; robertsfirstruling

1 posted on 10/04/2005 12:05:16 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Too bad Harriet Mier didn't get a chance to vote on this one.

She seems to be strongly pro-2A.


2 posted on 10/04/2005 12:11:38 AM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

THIS is our "conservative" SCOTUS at work?

Oh, that's right, this is the same SCOTUS that allowed the McPain-Swinegold attack on the first amendment to stand virtually intact, and the unPatriot act to remain in force, etc.

America, it WAS a great country!


3 posted on 10/04/2005 12:14:41 AM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Was Roberts in on this?


4 posted on 10/04/2005 12:19:08 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I think it is time to start a new national campaign to impeach Supreme Court non-justices. I'm sick and tired of their idiocy.
5 posted on 10/04/2005 12:34:19 AM PDT by dbehsman (One Wellstone memorial (rave party) is enough, thank you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

This case was NOT heard nor decided by the Supreme Court today.


http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/002315.php


6 posted on 10/04/2005 12:35:54 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
America, it WAS a great country!

Too bad we have to rely on memory.

7 posted on 10/04/2005 12:38:50 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I'm guessing that they turned this down mostly because S.397 could crush the case before it goes to trial. Also, in the absense of an actual trial, they can't say that the law is being improperly applied.


8 posted on 10/04/2005 12:40:37 AM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave



"The high court had been asked over the summer to use the case to strike down the statute, which gun makers said interfered with their right to sell lawful products. The lawsuit still could be voided by a new federal law, however. The Senate voted in July to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes. Action is pending in the House. "
--->

This is the right way to handle the case, not the USSC.

It is time for us to get back to the legislative branch to make law, not the judicial branch.


9 posted on 10/04/2005 1:49:09 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
I'm guessing that they turned this down mostly because S.397 could crush the case before it goes to trial.

Also, the plaintiffs foolishly argued based solely on the Commerce Clause, when they should have used the prohibition against Bills of Attainder, and the Fifth Ammendment's prohibition against the taking of private property.

The few Justices who interpret the Commerce Clause more narrowly would not have wanted to make a ruling in favor of the gun manufacturers by means of a ruling that distorts the Commerce Clause even further, and the other Justices are simply clueless.

10 posted on 10/04/2005 1:51:00 AM PDT by sourcery (Givernment: The way the average voter spells "government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Wacko courts!!!!


11 posted on 10/04/2005 2:26:40 AM PDT by zip (Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave

How did you come to the "..strongly pro-2A.." opinion?


12 posted on 10/04/2005 2:32:48 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692 NIT 475-5X :()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Nah, she's from Texas and carries a .357 Magnum:)

I heard one of her speeches and she is very solid on the real meaning of the 2-A.


13 posted on 10/04/2005 4:32:48 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
How did you come to the "..strongly pro-2A.." opinion?

Look here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_02-2005_10_08.shtml#1128378033

14 posted on 10/04/2005 5:09:22 AM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: zip
Wacko courts!!!!

Wacko Republican voters who allow Republican elected officials to turn liberal and make excuses for them.

Wacko conservative activists who make excuses for liberal actions by Republican officials.

Wacko conservative activists who make excuses for liberal Republican nonactions/silence by Republican officials.

15 posted on 10/04/2005 5:25:55 AM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

When, when, WHEN is this country going to start holding people ACCOUNTABLE for their own actions???? Nobody forces a person to buy a gun or smoke a cigarette! I use these two examples because they are in the forefront of stupid, frivilous lawsuits by shister, money-hungry lawyers AND stupid citizens! Bring back personal accountability and I think we'll see the pendulum swing the other way. But what do I know? I smoke and carry and I'm willing to take responsibility for both.


16 posted on 10/04/2005 5:37:29 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Yeah,

But by NOT hearing it, they in effect uphold the lower court decision, don't they?


17 posted on 10/04/2005 6:16:39 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Wheather this was a Liberal or Conservative ruling, this opens a nasty can of worms.


18 posted on 10/04/2005 6:33:05 AM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

That's a nice thought, but it will never happen.

In order to impeach them, you need to prove they committed a high crime or misdemeanor, and rendering a stupid or illogical decision doesn't fall into that category.

Besides, the people who would have do the impeachment are our Congressmen. They are a bunch of craven, gutless, spineless jellfish who are interested in one thing only - getting re-elected - again and again and again - so they can retire with all those nice perks they stole from the tax-payers.

The surest way to continue getting relected is not to rock the boat. By allowing the unelected, unremovable federal justices on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts control the shots, as it were, they are removing themselves from the line of fire by the public in the event they make a decision which is received negatively by a particular voting block.

We need term limits and referendum and recall and initiative and referendum - on the federal level as well as the state and local levels. But our elected representatives - and the courts - will fight that tooth and nail.

We have come a long way from Andrew Jackson who in effect told the Supreme Court to go screw itself when he disagreed with a decision of theirs, and even FDR - who, although I can't stand the guy otherwise - had the guts to tell the Court he was going to "pack" it if it tried to block his programs.

The problem isn't primarily with the Courts - its with elected officials who don't want to respond to the majority of their constituents on matters of significant importance regarding traditional American values and original intent in the Constitution.

And the problem lies with constituents who refuse to become actively involved with political processes on the local level and in the nominating processes and who conitune to re-elect nebishes to office.

Its Congress and the President's job to take on the Federal Courts when they get out of line.

And its OUR responsibility to take on Congress and the President when they don't.

There shoud be a unified scream of outrage at George Bush II for betraying his constituency by nominating this woman to the Supreme Court instead of fighting to get a candidate as reflective of Republican values and ideals approved, as Clinton did of candidates who reflected Democrat values and ideals when he was President.

But check out the posting on this subject on this very forum and you will see again and again people apologizing for Bush and suggesting that that woman will make a good judge.

Perhaps.

But that's really not the point, is it?


19 posted on 10/04/2005 6:37:16 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave

The case wasn't based on the 2nd Amend, but on the Commerce Clause.


20 posted on 10/04/2005 6:38:16 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (( ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

A candidates 2A position is my "litmus test".

If they honestly interpret the constitution and are willing to trust individuals with their own security, they have my support.


21 posted on 10/04/2005 7:03:34 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692 NIT 475-5X :()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Don't fret over this, which is one of the 999 of 1000 cases the SC opts not to hear. Half of those disappoint conservatives, half disappoint liberals.

They would probably wait until a manufacturer is sued and held liable to rule on the law as applied, if that. Why waste the effort on precedent when a political solution is imminent?

Holding manufacturers liable for the illegal acts of their customers may be stupid, but it does not necessarily violate the US Constitution. Arguably (and someone may come up with a good argument to the contrary) to rule such statutes unconstitutional may be judicial activism.
22 posted on 10/04/2005 7:12:32 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave

"She seems to be strongly pro-2A."

And this is based on?


23 posted on 10/04/2005 7:23:54 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Republican - The thinking people's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Yeah, But by NOT hearing it, they in effect uphold the lower court decision, don't they?

There are 10,000 cases presented to the Supreme Court every year and they grant cert to about 75.

24 posted on 10/04/2005 11:47:24 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson