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.
Not completely off-topic: Howie Carr just read from a speech Miers gave in 2002(?) in which she praised the Second Amendment.
Did Roberts rule on this one? Was there a split? This article doesn't say...
BTW if a 15 year plants bombs and blows up the supreme court will in session, and kills the black angels of the court, would he get the death penalty?
She is a nominee to the Supreme Court. She is not currently on it. She had nothing to do with the decision to let this suit continue, and even if she did, one cannot reasonably draw any conclusions about her opinions based on it. Your cartoon and subsequent comment make absolutely no sense in that light.
Why do you think all those racist laws where passed against the blacks in the south?
IIRC, No. I've never heard any such announcement. They need to get 4 judges to vote in the affirmative to hear a case, i.e. "to grant 'cert'"(Certiorari).
I blame them now. They have the tool of impeachment for judges that overreach.
Okay.
Easy Solution to this minor problem.
Ban the manufacture, sale or possession of any item whatsoever if, under any circumstances, said item could be used to cause injury to a person or property, or the government or one of it's representatives.
Since even water & oxygen would be banned from possession - we can all just sit down, relax and wait for the grim reaper - shouldn't take very long - and the government assures me it's painless.
Thanks Terpfen, After a reread i see what you mean. The Justices followed the example of the three infamous monkeys: "Hear no evil, speak no evil, and above all else;
see no evil".
If it twerent for cross breeding between jackasses and monkies, there would be no democrat party or the Court they count on for the the continuation of their lunatic agenda.
See comment# 46.
"If gun makers are responsible for who their products are aimed at,why aren't baseball bat makers,auto makers or knife manufacturers responsible for who their products are "aimed" at?"
My best friend, bless his soul, was killed at work by a drug-crazed hammer wielding idiot. I guess you should add hammers to your list.
All this anti-manufacturing legislation does is drive companies overseas. That's ok, we can always buy our uzzies from Uzbekistan.
By the way, I'd take it as a personal favor if fellow Freepers never buy a Kirby vacuum cleaner. This company was despicably horrendous to my best friend's family. They wouldn't even give his last paycheck to his dad after he was killed in their employ.
Oh yeah! God bless the N-Frame Smiths.
Mine actually looks a bit different now. I've add Miculek grips, a new weigand rear sight blade, and I've had the barrel shortened from 5" to 4" to make it IDPA legal. At the same time they changed the front sight mount to the 'Classic DX' style, so I can easily swap out the sights. Right now I have the gold bead installed.
Life is sweet and anti-gunners just don't get it. (Maybe they think we're having too much fun?)
I have had model 57 and 58' got rid of them three times and always ended up missing the .41 mag, just a nice round.
Besides skeeter designed it.
Because you can't overthrow tyrannical governments with the latter items.
05-118 BERETTA U.S.A. CORP., ET AL. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.
The motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
Interesting...although I believe it is not necessary for the entire Court to consider all petitions. It could very well have been some of the more liberal members blocking action.
The Court did not DECIDE anything other than not to hear this case.
Sad as it is, the Supreme court cannot hear all the cases presented to it.
I bet it works. This is a case they should hear and put a stop to. But not to worry the President has assured us his court picks will be originalists.
Senate Passes Gun Control Amidst Protection For Gun Makers
From glancing at the link, it just mentions mandatory trigger locks, but I know it also has an amendment in effect calling for the DOJ or AG to study ammunition that can penetrate routine LEO body armor, which happens to include almost all, if not all, centerfire rifle ammunition. It was to deflect an amendment by the swimmer to ban ammo and weapons that can penetrate such body armor, IIRC. It's S. 397. I know the clean House version is H.R. 800. I just checked at http://thomas.loc.gov/
Or a cross-bow, or a dart gun. Series, it is abolutely amazing how stoopid the anti-gun types are.
No, that was last year and a different Bill.
This time there are no poison pills attached - like Kennedy's "Cop Killer Bullet" baloney last year. The rats did try though but the amendments went down in flames. Ergo, so far its a clean bill. (operative words being "so far")
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.