[ontap]

And we had to have a court tell us this. What a waste of time!!

[aroundabout]

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.

[org.whodat]

With jorge agreeing with the DC gun ban, they are busy trying to find some way around this as well.

[2harddrive]

Hip-Hip, HOORAY! All REAL Americans should put our 2nd Amendment FIRST.

[rjsimmon]

An alert from the NRA-ILA indicated a similar decision handed down recently:

San Francisco Gun Ban Ruled Null and Void
NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

Fairfax, VA - The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
"Today's decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco," declared Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation's most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City's mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.
"We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven't given up that fight," continued Cox. "Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City's attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court's first decision to overturn the ban. Now we've beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law."
Today's decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.
"This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion," concluded Cox. "I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms."

[mountainlyons]

Why do renegade cities go after gun makers to pay medical bills but give the country away to illegals?

[epow]

This is good news of course, but the basic problem hasn't been done away with. The countless baseless lawsuits that have been filed against the gun makers were not expected to be won, or even intended to be won. The anti-gun strategy was, and apparently still is, to bankrupt the industry with legal expenses by forcing it to defend multiple baseless, junk lawsuits and thereby put it out of business, or at least to raise the price of new guns to make them unaffordable to as many people as possible.

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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

[Niteranger68]

LOL!!! FUDC!!!