1 posted on
10/04/2005 11:41:26 AM PDT by
neverdem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: neverdem
"a D.C. law that says gun manufacturers can be held accountable for violence from assault weapons."
What does it matter whether the gun you're shot with is an assault weapon, or a simple .45 revolver?
2 posted on
10/04/2005 11:45:12 AM PDT by
Brilliant
To: neverdem
Yet, despite these kind of outrageous rulings, we still can't get open originalists appointed to the court.
Sooner or later, it's the Republican party that is going to have to be pinned with blame for the actions of the courts since it refuses to change the direction of it.
To: Grannyx4; TapTap
4 posted on
10/04/2005 11:46:31 AM PDT by
LongElegantLegs
(also enjoy the occasional kick of a puppy.)
To: neverdem
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?
To: neverdem
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. I wonder what else is in the senate version if the normally pro-gun GOP House hasn't passed it.
7 posted on
10/04/2005 11:49:27 AM PDT by
1Old Pro
To: neverdem
This is going to be VERY bad - there is nothing now between a HUGE DC jury award. Can you imagine what the DC jury award is going to be?
9 posted on
10/04/2005 11:49:42 AM PDT by
Fido969
("And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).)
To: neverdem
"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.
I always thought that their utility arose from their "lethal nature". Love my Bushmaster.
10 posted on
10/04/2005 11:50:05 AM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: neverdem
11 posted on
10/04/2005 11:50:13 AM PDT by
dts32041
( Robin Hood, stealing from the government and giving back to tax payer. Where is he today?)
To: neverdem
No car accidents without car makers
lawyers will really hit the deep pockets.
If only cars had safety features that prevented speeding, recognized red lights and stop signs, and automatically prevented driving with faulty equipment and alcoholic drivers they would be safe. A big lawyer wealth distribution scheme is on the way. - remember lawyers always fight until your last dollar.
To: neverdem
If gun manufacturers can be held liable for misuse of their legally manufactured and sold products, then the same is true of car manufacturers. Every law broken by a driver is the fault of the car company that manufactured the car. You can't cherry pick manufacturer liability.
This is a poor start of the new session of the Supreme Court.
13 posted on
10/04/2005 11:54:26 AM PDT by
Myrddin
To: neverdem
This article is written to upset conservatives.
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.
14 posted on
10/04/2005 11:55:22 AM PDT by
msnimje
(Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
To: neverdem
SCOTUS is irrelevant.
They have Prostituted themselves to the world and it is time that they be eliminated as a Part of Government.
3 monkeys with a dart board and a handful of darts could make better decision.
20 posted on
10/04/2005 12:01:08 PM PDT by
Leatherneck_MT
(3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
To: neverdem
Are we allowed to know which Injustice voted how on this case??
21 posted on
10/04/2005 12:02:11 PM PDT by
F.J. Mitchell
(Show me a liberal and I'll show you a head and a heart, designed for nothing but cracking walnuts.)
To: neverdem
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?
24 posted on
10/04/2005 12:07:33 PM PDT by
NRA1995
(When liberals speak I hear the Vonage music playing.....woo-hoo, woo-hoo-hoo....)
To: neverdem
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.
25 posted on
10/04/2005 12:09:11 PM PDT by
jrd
To: neverdem
Wonder if gun mfrs could respond by refusing to sell their products in DC - even to police and government agencies for use in DC.
27 posted on
10/04/2005 12:11:12 PM PDT by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: neverdem
This wasn't decided by the supremes folks.
It was decided by the DC Court of Appeals.
To: neverdem
Not completely off-topic: Howie Carr just read from a speech Miers gave in 2002(?) in which she praised the Second Amendment.
41 posted on
10/04/2005 12:27:16 PM PDT by
maryz
To: neverdem
Did Roberts rule on this one? Was there a split? This article doesn't say...
42 posted on
10/04/2005 12:29:15 PM PDT by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/secondaryproblemsofsocialism.htm)
To: neverdem
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.
48 posted on
10/04/2005 12:37:37 PM PDT by
An.American.Expatriate
(Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson