Posted on 01/13/2008 5:23:06 AM PST by radar101
NEWTOWN, Conn., Jan. 10 — Earlier today, a unanimous (3-0) District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the May 2006 decision of District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Brook Hedges dismissing a lawsuit, filed in January 2000, by the District of Columbia and the families of nine victims of criminal shootings that occurred in the district. The district and the plaintiffs had sued the manufacturers under the district's so-called Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act which imposes automatic and absolute liability on manufacturers for injuries resulting from criminal shootings in the district, even if, as Judge Farrell observed, the criminal shootings happened "years after the manufacture or sale and despite the utmost care taken in the manufacture or sale" of the firearm.
In upholding the dismissal Judge Farrell noted that Congress' purpose in passing the PLCAA was to "prohibit [lawsuits] against manufacturers ... for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms products ..." The court wrote that allowing the district's lawsuit to proceed "would, in our view, frustrate Congress' clear intention."
"Today's ruling is very gratifying to members of the firearms industry," said Lawrence G. Keane, chief spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry's trade association. "The District of Columbia lawsuit was like blaming car makers for drunk-driving accidents."
In passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress understood that junk lawsuits like the district's defied common sense and were an abuse of the judicial system that threatened to bankrupt a responsible and law-abiding industry. The ruling is another major setback for gun control groups, principally the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which pursued and funded many of the municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry.
The appellate court also rejected the district's claim that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was unconstitutional. In rejecting the district's arguments, the court wrote, "Congress was especially concerned with lawsuits that have been commenced seeking money damages and other relief against manufacturers and sellers of firearms for harms caused by the misuse of their products by others, including criminals, and with the threat to interstate commerce of thus imposing liability on an entire industry for the harm solely caused by others."
And we had to have a court tell us this. What a waste of time!!
Now the gun companies ought to bring a lawsuit against the 9 plaintiffs, seeking the recovery of court costs. Even if they lose it ought to cost the plaintiffs a small fortune to defend themselves and may possibly deter others from similar wasting of the courts time.
I believe this is first (and hopefully last ??) test of the PLCA Act. But I wonder how much money was wasted on these absurd suits. I don’t think the cities won any of the many suits filed.
Go after the political groups backing and funding the “victims”
Suits against the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are especially appropriate.
It should be criminal for the bastards to waste taxpayer money on these absurd idiot suits.
Did the judges tell the Brady Center to pick up the legal tab?
Hip-Hip, HOORAY! All REAL Americans should put our 2nd Amendment FIRST.
There you go!
Wonder why they never ask Huckster, the dope from hope, that question?
The problem now is that while the law recently passed by Congress prohibits baseless, harassment lawsuits against the industry, suits may still be filed claiming legitimate injury and the industry still has to spend money on lawyers to show the court that the suit is in fact frivolous and without merit in order to have it dismissed. The cost to the industry is substantially reduced by the recent law, but the suits are still costing the industry and still adding to the retail price of new firearms.
A possible remedy would be a revision of the present law that would financially penalize the people who file baseless lawsuits if it can be proved that the suit was in fact baseless and designed to be harassment. But a Democrat Congress would never even consider such a revision, much less pass it.
Where did this fruitcake get off deciding that the Bill of Rights does not apply within the District of Columbia. The whole point of the US Constitution is to constrain the powers of government. Is she suggesting that the District of Columbia should become a Forbidden City, where only the Emperor and his lackeys may enter and all other tremble with fear as they approach the walls and gates? This might yet be the nuttiest thing that a judge has yet written.
The brief in the first place is an excellent review of origin meaning and application of the 2nd amendment which everyone should read. Second, all it requests is that the Supreme Court clarify the standard of review relevant to this case and remand back to the lower courts for rehearing under the rules established by the Supreme Court. This is neither unusual nor unreasonable.
The brief contains the lie that Machine Guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety. From 1934-1986, one could go out and buy a brand new machine gun at a reasonable price, as long as you passed a tough background check and paid a $200 tax. During that time (which Parker would return to) there was only one (1) crime committed with a lawfully possessed machine gun, and that was by a police officer.
The proper ruling from the court would be not to rule on the issue of machine guns, and stick to the question before the court. Saying “but machine guns are OK for a federal ban” would be improper dicta.
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.