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."
That is not an issue in controversy in this case and so no Court has jurisdiction to rule on that issue.
I believe in the constitution, and reluctantly believe that private possession of firearms is probably a good thing overall [I live in DC and the notion of the nutcases who work here walking around with guns is scary, but I concede the point on balance], but you gunnutters need to show some self restraint. Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety as are 155mm Howitzers and nuclear bombs. When you overreach you scare folks who might otherwise be on your side.
Private possession of firearms is common here and carry conceal laws make an armed populace a fact of life that criminals have to take into account.
Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
National
Washington, DC
Murder: 29.1
Tampa, FL
Murder: 7.5
I am surprised that DC has more murders then even Miami..Citizens in DC would appear to need armed protection worse then I do. We seem to draw the thieves and con artists in this part of the South.
They are far less dangerous to safety than big-government anarchists (i.e. those agencies like the BATF who oppose lawful government)
Machine guns are unusually dangerous to the public safety
How many homicides per year were committed during 1934-1986 (before the ban the DOJ brief worries about being repealed), when one could go our and buy a new machine gun after a rigorous background check?
Or are you just basing your opinion on emotion, after seeing too many Hollywood movies?
That is not an issue in controversy in this case and so no Court has jurisdiction to rule on that issue.
The second amendment is pretty clear on the RTKABA's. And the justifying clause for that right makes it pretty clear that those arms are what one would need to be equipped for militia duty.
IOW's if the Second Amendment stands as is, it should be quite legal for Americans to arm themselves with M16's.
I do draw the line at Stealth Bombers however so I'm not a total nut.:-}
Just joshing, no right is absolute and the 2nd leaves plenty of room for regulation but no matter how one looks at it, we should be able to own the same weapon we were issued in Basic. See Israel.
Please provide a reference for your contention that President Bush (jorge in your juvenile attempt at disrespect)supports the DC gun ban and has actively been trying to find a way around “this as well”. I had not heard of his support before reading your post. TX for your help.
I've posted several times pointing out how weak the US brief is and that it isn't much of a threat to us.
For correctness sake, however, it should be pointed out that the US brief specifically asks that the Supreme Court ADOPT a different standard, not just clarify, and that standard would permit the outlawing of an entire category of firearms, specifically machineguns. Unfortunately, the result of permitting the outlawing of machineguns would be a level of scrutiny that would permit outlawing of handguns.
As an example of the weakness of the government's brief, I point out that the brief contains the word "infringed" only twice; once when quoting the text of the Second Amendment and once when quoting an older court decision which found that banning concealed carry is not an infringement.
Adopting the standard requested by the government would be no different than treating the Second Amendment as if it didn't exist. If the only protection afforded is that of the pre-existing common-law right to defend self and community, then there would have been no need for an amendment to be ratified. "Shall not be infringed" cannot possibly be interpreted as "shall be reasonably regulated as Congress sees fit". It was intended, at the very least, to be equivalent to "Congress shall make no law ...".
Here's a quick test for you. Osama Bin Shootin enters your crowded church with an "assault weapon" and three full twenty round magazines. He is not specifically targetting YOU. Would you prefer that he be firing full auto or semi-auto? And why?
LOL!!! FUDC!!!
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.