Posted on 11/27/2006 12:09:49 PM PST by politicalwit
Vanity Post.... I heard on WLS radio (Chicago, IL) that the recently passed bill exempting gun retailers and manufacturers from lawsuits has been declared "unconstitutional" by a Lake County IN judge and that the City of Gary, IN can proceed with suits (approx 30) against retailers and makers. Has anyone else heard this tidbit?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/LOCAL/611270424
November 27, 2006
Gun makers appeal Hoosier's ruling
Court finds federal shield against lawsuits unconstitutional
By Karen Eschbacher
karen.eschbacher@indystar.com
Gun makers are appealing an Indiana judge's first-of-its-kind ruling that a federal law shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits is unconstitutional.
The law
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress in 2005. It prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry by municipalities and victims seeking damages for gun-related violence.
The ruling
Lake Superior Court Judge Robert A. Pete ruled that the law is unconstitutional and refused to dismiss a lawsuit by the city of Gary against manufacturers and dealers. An appeal has been initiated.
The following are excerpts from Pete's decision:
"(It) is clearly an act which was passed in response to pressure from the gun industry."
"Under the PLCAA gun manufacturers would not have any responsibility for foreseeable harm caused by negligence in producing and distributing weapons and those harmed, past, present, and future would be wholly without remedy in state and federal court."
"Further, our Supreme Court has long recognized laws that are applied retroactively and/or laws that serve as a deprivation of existing rights are particularly unsuited to a democracy such as ours."
The ruling by Lake Superior Court Judge Robert A. Pete allows a lawsuit filed by the city of Gary to continue against 16 gun manufacturers and six Northern Indiana gun dealers. The suit, filed in 1999, alleges the manufacturers and gun dealers sold handguns they knew would end up in the hands of criminals.
Gun manufacturers had sought to have the case dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Passed by Congress in 2005, the law grants the industry broad protections from municipalities and victims seeking damages for gun-related violence.
Pete ruled that the law violates the due process and separation of powers clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
"(It) is clearly an act which was passed in response to pressure from the gun industry," he wrote in his decision last month.
A few cases filed elsewhere against the gun industry have been allowed to proceed under an exemption in the law, but Pete's ruling marked the first time the act was declared unconstitutional.
Gun manufacturers last week filed initial paperwork needed to appeal the decision.
Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade association, said Congress has the right to ban the lawsuits.
"We believe that the judge's decision is flawed as a matter of law and constitutional analysis," Keane said. "We think we're going to clearly win on appeal."
While drawing at least some attention around the country, the ruling here should have limited effect on cases elsewhere, said Ivan Bodensteiner, a constitutional law professor at Valparaiso University School of Law.
A ruling by a judge in Indiana does not bind a judge in another state, Bodensteiner said, and such decisions don't often get widely cited.
Still, the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is helping represent the city of Gary, has hailed the decision as significant.
"It's gratifying to us that this bill, which was clearly a special-interest payoff to the gun industry and the gun lobby, was struck down by one of the courts that looked at it," said Brian Siebel, a senior attorney with the Brady Center.
The Gary lawsuit has already survived several hurdles.
After the city filed its lawsuit in 1999, the Indiana General Assembly passed a bill the next year to ban lawsuits by other municipalities.
Lake Superior Court Judge James Richards dismissed the Gary case in 2001, saying the city cannot fault businesses beyond its jurisdiction for the crimes committed by others.
That decision was appealed and ultimately landed before the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled in 2003 that the lawsuit could go forward.
The federal law was passed after that and applied retroactively.
Thanks for the link. I looked in the local paper (Lake/Porter Co) and WLS radio but could find nothing.
That copied terrible and is hard to read, sorry.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/16108593.htm
Posted on Mon, Nov. 27,
Gun makers to appeal ruling that allows lawsuit to continue
Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS - Gun makers are moving to appeal a judge's ruling that declared a year-old federal law shielding them from lawsuits as unconstitutional.
Attorney filed initial paperwork last week needed to appeal the ruling, which allows the city of Gary's lawsuit to continue against 16 gun makers and six northern Indiana gun dealers.
That lawsuit, which has survived several hurdles, alleges that makers and dealers sold weapons they knew would end up in criminals' hands.
Gun makers had sought to have the case dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which Congress passed in 2005. The law grants the industry broad protections from municipalities and victims seeking damages for gun-related violence.
But in October, Lake Superior Court Judge Robert A. Pete ruled that the law violates the due process and separation of powers clauses of the U.S. Constitution, writing that it "is clearly an act which was passed in response to pressure from the gun industry."
Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade association, said Congress has the right to ban the lawsuits.
"We believe that the judge's decision is flawed as a matter of law and constitutional analysis," Keane said. "We think we're going to clearly win on appeal."
The Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is helping represent the city of Gary, has hailed the ruling as significant.
"It's gratifying to us that this bill, which was clearly a special-interest payoff to the gun industry and the gun lobby, was struck down by one of the courts that looked at it," said Brian Siebel, a senior attorney with the Brady Center.
But Ivan Bodensteiner, a constitutional law professor at Valparaiso University School of Law, said a ruling by a judge in Indiana does not bind a judge in another state, and such decisions do not often get widely cited.
After the city filed its lawsuit in 1999, the Indiana General Assembly passed a bill the next year to ban lawsuits by other municipalities.
A Lake County judge dismissed the Gary case in 2001, saying the city cannot fault businesses beyond its jurisdiction for others' crimes. But the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in 2003 - before the retroactive federal law was passed - that the lawsuit could proceed.
I think DaveLoneRanger has Bang Ping
You ARE aware, I'm sure, that politicians and elected officials are IMMUNE from civil liability for the laws they pass, aren't you?????
Ohh, yeah! I think that's unconstitutional, too, or at least not in keeping with the 'no order of nobility' and 'equal protection' bits, and as soon as the Powers-That-Be realize this I'm sure they'll change it. ;^)
The law does not 'immunize' the gun mfgs from lawsuits for faulty products of damages caused by faulty products only from being sued when their product is intentionally misused through no fault of the mfg.
That is only right as the 'anties' could bring and have brought all sorts of BS law suites with the sole purpose being to bankrupt the gun mfgs.
OOPS! Sorry, Gut = GRUT
No, but they could be. Which is why I favor criminalizing lawsuits which have no purpose except harrassment. That way, not only are gunmakers protected but so is everyone else.
OK. Say we ciminalize these type of lawsuits. How do we determine they fall into the catagory. When do we arrest? Who makes the decisions? Even if the suit is dropped the Gun Mfg has already spent time and money on defense so who pays him back. What if the can't repay the Mfg? The Mfg would still be out of money and out of business. I can see lefties doing this to acheive their ends. (not trying to bust your b*lls just questions I have)
The important part would be where the would-be plaintifs determine there's a chance they'll be prosecuted and decide not to proceed.
The Brady Bunch et al will not care. It will end up bankrupting the gun mfgs.
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.