Skip to comments.Supreme Court Won't Block Suit Against Gun Makers
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.
Too bad Harriet Mier didn't get a chance to vote on this one.
She seems to be strongly pro-2A.
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!
Was Roberts in on this?
This case was NOT heard nor decided by the Supreme Court today.
Too bad we have to rely on memory.
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.
"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.
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.
How did you come to the "..strongly pro-2A.." opinion?
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.
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.
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.
But by NOT hearing it, they in effect uphold the lower court decision, don't they?
Wheather this was a Liberal or Conservative ruling, this opens a nasty can of worms.
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.
But that's really not the point, is it?
The case wasn't based on the 2nd Amend, but on the Commerce Clause.
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.
"She seems to be strongly pro-2A."
And this is based on?
There are 10,000 cases presented to the Supreme Court every year and they grant cert to about 75.
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.