Since they're also suing S&W, one has to assume that the 'simple .45 revolver' is now also considered an assault weapon.
And please don't call my .45 revolver 'simple', it's bright and shiny! (and a little out of focus)
Posted on 10/04/2005 11:41:23 AM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital.
An appeals court had said that the District of Columbia government and individual gun victims, including a man who was left a quadriplegic after being shot in 1997, could sue under a D.C. law that says gun manufacturers can be held accountable for violence from assault weapons.
The high court had been asked over the summer to use the case to strike down the statute, which gun makers said interfered with their right to sell lawful products.
The lawsuit could still be voided by a new federal law, however. The Senate voted in July to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes. Action is pending in the House.
The District of Columbia has strict rules about gun possession, and justices had been told that its law interfered with the gun commerce in other states. Twelve states had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule with gun makers: Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
"The District of Columbia's statute threatens ... gun manufacturers with draconian penalties based on their lawful out-of-state commercial activity -- and on the criminal misconduct of third parties over whom the manufacturers have no control," justices were told in a filing by former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, now the lawyer for the gun companies.
The case does not involve the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Instead, it challenges the law under the Commerce Clause's ban on "direct regulation" of out-of-state commerce and on the due process clause.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ruled last spring in the case against Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Corp., Colt's Manufacturing Co (located in West Hartford), Glock Inc., and other companies.
"No due process issue is raised by legislation that seeks to redress injuries suffered by district residents and visitors resulting from the manufacture and distribution of a particular class of firearms whose lethal nature far outweighs their utility," Judge Michael Farrell wrote.
The case is Beretta v. District of Columbia, 05-118.
Are we allowed to know which Injustice voted how on this case??
--what's your source for this?
None of them voted, given that the Supreme Court did not hear or rule on the case, because the law says that the suit can be filed.
To hear it would be to potentially legislate from the bench.
Does this mean that, if I'm in the opposing teams' fan section at a Yankees game and they throw batteries and hit me with one, I can sue Eveready or Ray-O-Vac?
The lawsuit could still be voided by a new federal law, however. The Senate voted in July to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes. Action is pending in the House.
Nothing at all, except that the assailant that used the 45 will probably put just one hole in your body (likely into a vital organ, while the dummy with the assault weapon will probably miss you altogether, while wounding a slew of none targets.
If you are the target you want the assaliant to be using an assault weapon. If you are an innocent by-stander, you are safer when the shooter is using the 45.
Wonder if gun mfrs could respond by refusing to sell their products in DC - even to police and government agencies for use in DC.
They're next. The elite want you unarmed, squatting in an apartment next to a train track so you can go to your job to give the money to them, and best of all, your children in government indoctrination centers!
Yeah, but the only people who are going to sue under that staute are the people who got hit. So who cares if the bullet came from a .45 or an assault weapon?
Wow, who knew Miers could get the blame for this? I thought the president had just nominated her and she's already writing opinions. Does the Senate know about this?/sarcasm
Tag fix
You are so right. What would happen if Budweiser, Miller, Coors etc. were to be the targets of suits for alcoholic related deaths? How far would local DA's get before the breweries and sheeple put a stop to the suits? It is far over due that gun manufactures are protected from law suits that have nothing to due with the quality of their product.
Since they're also suing S&W, one has to assume that the 'simple .45 revolver' is now also considered an assault weapon.
And please don't call my .45 revolver 'simple', it's bright and shiny! (and a little out of focus)
Yes: White (wo) men can jump
!
In our political wars there are always a variety of motivations brought to each battle. Some people want to fight these wars for aims and purposes they hold deeply in their hearts. Some want to fight because they think it is expected of them. Still others fight to keep their enemies from realizing a victory. Some just don’t like the people on the other side and would fight with them over anything, just for the joy of engaging their enemies. To these people fighting is sometimes more important than winning.
Today we are considering the nomination of Harriet Miers as our next United States Supreme Court Justice. The President’s nomination of Miss Miers has brought forth a gaggle of “conservative thinkers” who seem to almost universally fall into the category of those willing to fight for the sake of fighting. They are people who should be our natural allies at times like this, but alas they find more joy in beating their breasts in displays of political piousness and complaining that this nomination doesn’t allow them to fight. They have immediately started cranking out aid and comfort to our enemies in the liberal camp without regard for the consequences.
They have quickly dusted off their hair shirts ( in some notable cases hair skirts) and sack cloth and begun to proclaim themselves “oh so much more conservative than “ anybody who doesn’t agree with them about the value of this nomination. They can do this because they “know” Harriet Miers. They “know” her better than President Bush does you see. These people have some secret heretofore unrevealed “knowledge” that Harriet Miers, a lady whose name was largly unknown to the rest of us until Monday, is really David Souter is a skirt.
Like the liberals whose real feelings about Blacks were exposed by their quick embrace of the horror stories that came out of New Orleans, these “conservative thinkers” have exposed themselves as believers that President Bush really is a bumbling idiot after all. In doing so they have made Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid proud. Notwithstanding what the “conservative thinker” corps “knows”, and their feckless bleats of “We know nothing about her.”, here are some things we actually do know about Miss Harriet Miers.
· The president has known her for ten years. Since Mr. Bush has yet to get a big decision wrong, this should be enough to bring an honest evaluator of the facts half way there. · The very idea that President Bush would select a pro abortion liberal for this position is the stuff of the crack pipe dreams of the far left. This is real life. That didn’t happen. · Harriet Miers is a twenty five year member of an Evangelical Christian Church. Her Church, Valley View Christian Church is a fundamentalist Christian Church that holds every view genuine conservatives would want in a Supreme Court Justice. Her Pastor, Rev. Ron Key tells us she has taught Sunday School for him. She tithes to her Church. He also makes the point that in his Church their view of marriage is the Biblical approach. A member of her Church has stated that on the Constitution she is an orginalist. She takes the Constitution, as she takes the Bible, literally. · The record of her religious voyage shows that she was brought up a Catholic and that she was “reborn” into the Evangelical Christian faith around 1980. · It is worth noting that what we do know about people who were once Catholics and subsequently became Evangelical Christians is that they do not make suck a switch because they want a Church who offers them looser interpretations of Scripture. These stricter interpretations of the Bible on Sundays almost invariably lead to conservative votes on election Tuesdays. We need only look at the voting habits of Hispanics for support of this accretion. Hispanic Catholics who “move down the street” to an Evangelical Christian Church do not do so because they want to be told gay “marriage” or abortion are just fine so long as you do whatever in privacy. If they hear this talk they keep moving until they find a church that gives them the hell fire and brimstone they crave in their religious life. They don’t vote Democrat. Catholic Hispanics are the Democrat voters. · Miss Miers has attended at least two Pro-Life dinners. That’s probably two more than many of her critics have attended. · As a pioneer woman in a large Dallas Texas law firm in the 1980s Harriet Miers contributed money to Democrats. These contributions included checks to people like Al Gore. Could she have done so willingly? We’ll likely never find out. If you think this is an automatic disqualifier, you probably don’t know that Ronald Reagan was at one time an active and proud Democrat. · There have never been and never will be any Supreme Court Justices who had two votes. The “conservative thinkers” may weep and moan about Michael Luttig not being selected, but he like everyone else beforehim would have just one vote. There is ample evidence that Miss Miers will be that same one vote as Mr. Luttig. · Our “conservative thinkers” are lamenting that she is not a “scholarly legal giant” and the such, but does this not in and of itself imply a wish for someone who will rewrite the Constitution the way WE want it rewritten? Who is selling out our aims here? · True thinking conservatives should want someone who will be a judicial referee. We want someone who can hear cases and say: “ Sorry but I don’t see a “right to destroy your baby in the Constitution” or “ I can’t find any way you can stretch the Commerce Clause to cover this”. We want this and nothing more. · Relying on a rino invalidated Senate to confirm a Michael Luttig is a dangerous and very unnecessary position. There are enough of them who could swing away and scuttle his nomination. This would mean an embarrassment and a big loss of power and prestige for both the President and the Republican Party going into next year’s election cycle, which actually starts around December. · Allowing Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and the media to dictate to us how we should feel about our nominees is not a solid battle tactic. They actually only exist because the rinos and the “conservative thinkers” of the Beltway allow them to. Let me off. · · There is a line from a movie called “White men can’t jump” that is illustrative of these points. The plot revolves around two young men, a Black man and a White man, who are basketball “hustlers” for a living. They go around from court to court pretending to be weak players until the money is on the table. Then they come to life and do just enough to win. They never try to crush their marks. They just try to beat them. · There is the unavoidable fallout between them and the White man delivers a line that goes something like this: “The difference between us is that you’d rather miss a shot then look bad and I’d rather look bad and make the shot.” Is our real point to “hit the shot” and thereby win a seat on the Court for a true conservative or risk missing the shot to look good?
Ever hear of feet? The finishing touches attached ends of those other limbs, called legs? Lethal!
"Guitar strings?"
Honest, Judge-ya gotta believe me!!!! I had no idea that my picking drove all those neighbors to suicide. I always thought it was because they envied my talent.
Agreed.
This wasn't decided by the supremes folks.
It was decided by the DC Court of Appeals.
Hey I got a .41 Magnum that looks like that.
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.