Posted on 10/3/2007, 12:59:26 AM by neverdem
Judges to decide whether 2005 federal law bars Gary's suit against firearm industry
INDIANAPOLIS | The stern remarks and sharp questions posed Monday by the Indiana Court of Appeals gave the city of Gary hope its 1999 lawsuit against gun manufacturers and dealers will go forward in spite of a federal law designed to shield the industry from liability claims involving criminal misuse of products.
The three-judge appellate panel appeared to take umbrage at the industry's assertion that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that Congress approved in 2005 prohibits Indiana courts from moving ahead with the Gary lawsuit.
"How can they be changing the law when it hasn't been decided yet by the courts?" Judge Patricia Riley asked during Monday's oral arguments. Michael Rice, a Dallas attorney representing the firearms industry, said Congress appropriately decided the Gary lawsuit and dozens more launched by other cities "were a threat and burden on interstate and foreign commerce."
Isaac Lidsky, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney, also argued in support of the federal law, saying Lake County Judge Robert Pete was mistaken last year when he became the first jurist to declare the act unconstitutional.
Lidsky told the court Congress "routinely preempts state common law" when it comes to liability issues and Pete wrongly asserted that the federal law infringed on the duties of state courts.
Brian Siebel, a senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the industry's arguments are "based on the statute they wished Congress had passed." He said the federal law only immunizes the firearms industry from cases where manufacturers and gun dealers did nothing wrong.
The Gary lawsuit, which the Indiana Supreme Court allowed to go forward in 2003, alleges gunmakers and dealers created a public nuisance by failing to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining and misusing handguns. At issue is whether Indiana's public nuisance statute can be applied to the case. The appellate panel appeared to express interest Monday in seeing that question decided.
Judge John Sharpnack said the courts have yet to decide whether the industry facilitated illegal straw-man sales that resulted in the city of Gary "having to deal with a sea, if you will, of illegal firearms in their community."
Rice and Lidsky declined further comment after the hearing. But Siebel said the Gary case could succeed where similar suits in other states have stalled.
"The thing that is unique here is that we do have a unanimous (Indiana) Supreme Court decision that essentially has applied this (nuisance) statute to this conduct and said, 'Go forward with this case because you've met the pleading elements (and) they've knowingly violated this statute,'" Siebel said. "I think that does, certainly, make us a stronger case."
pguinane@nwitimes.com 317.637.9078
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Your Honor, but Congress can change the law because they are a LEGISLATIVE body. That means they can pass laws without the approval of the courts.
OF COURSE the statute bars any such frivolous suits. That is not the question. The question is, will it be ENFORCED?
In a jurisdiction where the Constitution is respected, there's no such thing as an "illegal firearm".
Simple thoughts small Democrat brains.
Civics education isn’t what it used to be.
Careful, or you will be inundated by FReepers who claim that anything can be decreed to be illegal, -- using the principle of majority rule.
When did gunmakers and dealers become clairvoyants with all the authority of sworn law enforcement officers? Is there a master list of criminals with their daily itineraries and intent posted somewhere? The BS meter is fully pegged on this one. Not to mention that the courts don't make law. The interpret existing laws. The laws have been changed by the legislature (Congress) and approved by the Executive. The case has been overcome by events. Time to dismiss it.
“How can they be changing the law when it hasn’t been decided yet by the courts?” Judge Patricia Riley asked during Monday’s oral arguments.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Your Honor, but Congress can change the law because they are a LEGISLATIVE body. That means they can pass laws without the approval of the courts.
_______________________
I hate to make snap judgments about people, but this one quote is proof positive that Judge Riley is a first-class, no-holds-barred MORON! Thanks, Logophile, for your trenchant comment - you’ve hit the nail on the head. The deliberate confusion of the roles of Congress and the courts (as delineated in the Constitution) is a product of leftist law schools (including the one I attended) throughout America.
LOL! a majority of one in one particular FReeper who commits serial statist soliloquies on two particular subjects
We are cursed with an excess of fools like Riley and Jack B. Weinstein.
State of Indiana doesn't require much in the way of a legal education, does it?
Ok, let's show just how stupid this argument is by changing a few words like so; "Automakers and dealers created a public nuisance by failing to prevent criminals (drunks) from illegally driving and misusing automobiles."
Or how about; "Cutlery makers and dealers created a public nuisance by failing to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining and misusing knives."
-Traveler
Though Weinstein may well be a fool, that’s not the important thing about him. What’s important is that he holds a powerful position, and he is a dedicated, creative, energetic and ruthless enemy of liberty and of the constitution.
Sounds like Judge Riley is on the same team.
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.