Skip to comments.
Indiana Court First to Rule Gun Industry Legal Shield Law Unconstitutional
US Newswire Press Release / The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence ^
| 10/26/06
| n/a
Posted on 10/27/2006 10:10:14 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: kiriath_jearim
"It allows Gary, Indiana's lawsuit against sixteen gun manufacturers and six northern Indiana gun dealers to proceed toward trial."
****
Gary, Indiana. That says it all....
To: kiriath_jearim
Was there any doubt this would end up in the laps of the Supremes?
3
posted on
10/27/2006 10:11:39 AM PDT
by
Ingtar
(Prensa dos para el inglés)
To: kiriath_jearim
In a landmark ruling with nationwide implications, Lake County, Indiana Superior Court Judge Robert A. Pete on Monday declared unconstitutional a 2005 federal law backed by the gun lobby that sought to limit the legal liability of gun dealers and manufacturers in the case of City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson et al. A state judge declaring a federal law unconstitutional? When the law in question involves interstate commerce and therefore is actually under the proper jurisdiction of the feds? Let alone 2nd Amendment arguments?
This guy will be on the short list for federal judge nominees whenever the next Dem president is elected.
4
posted on
10/27/2006 10:14:01 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(700 miles of fence - it's a start)
To: Ingtar
Was there any doubt this would end up in the laps of the Supremes?The Supremes will probably vote 9-0 to remand the decision and tell the state court to butt out of federal laws.
5
posted on
10/27/2006 10:14:52 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(700 miles of fence - it's a start)
To: kiriath_jearim
The court is in direct violation of the Constitution. The Constitution says only the congress can make law. The court has NO Constitutional Powers to make law. Impeach this bunch of dictators.
6
posted on
10/27/2006 10:16:01 AM PDT
by
YOUGOTIT
To: kiriath_jearim
I'm all for the 2nd ammendment, but this Federal Law doesn't sound like a good idea considering the actions of the gun industry. Can someone explain it to me?
7
posted on
10/27/2006 10:16:02 AM PDT
by
The Blitherer
(You were given the choice between war & dishonor. You chose dishonor & you will have war. -Churchill)
To: kiriath_jearim
The court held that the law "is clearly an act which was passed in response to pressure from the gun industry." Doesnt that just scream: "Legislating from the bench"?
EVERY act passed by any legislature is ALWAYS in response to pressure from SOMEONE. So, are you also going to overturn EVERY law in Indiana as well?
8
posted on
10/27/2006 10:16:22 AM PDT
by
lowbridge
(DNC - "We support our troops! Ummm.....what do they look like again?")
To: kiriath_jearim
Would someone explain to me how a state superior court judge is allowed to (a) make rulings on constitutional issues (these are made at the appellate level; superior courts try cases and confine themselves to applying existing precedent to the facts of the case) and (b) to rule on the constitutionality of a federal law?
To: dirtboy
Can a state judge even do that?
I don't believe a state judge can rule a federal law unconsititutional.
To: The Blitherer
BTW, I'm not defending the Courts position. It needs to butt out of Federal affairs. But I'm questioning the law in the first place.
11
posted on
10/27/2006 10:17:08 AM PDT
by
The Blitherer
(You were given the choice between war & dishonor. You chose dishonor & you will have war. -Churchill)
To: All
Another reason to vote for the pubbies...conservative judges...
To: The Blitherer
But I'm questioning the law in the first place.The law is an effort to make guns too expensive to manufacture. Plain and simple.
13
posted on
10/27/2006 10:18:21 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(700 miles of fence - it's a start)
To: The Blitherer
I'm trying to figure out why an industry is held accountable or why it is responsible for the actions of people who buy their product for resale.
To me, it's like saying Ford is responsible because a car dealership in a gang occupied area of Los Angeles sold a car to the Crips/Bloods/who the hell ever and then used it in a drive-by shooting.
To: The Blitherer
Which actions of the gun industry do you refer to?
15
posted on
10/27/2006 10:18:47 AM PDT
by
digger48
To: The Blitherer
"considering the actions of the gun industry. "
what do you mean by that, lefty?
To: Ingtar
Speaking of; I'd like any Hoosiers with any knowlede of our courts to tell me about Sup. Ct. Justice Frank Sullivan..?
(He's on my ballot to be retained..and I need to know if his recored is 'good' or judicially activist leaning to be replaced with someone new that Mitch would nominate..?).
Isn't the election of judges wonderful..I wish it in every state.. ;),
17
posted on
10/27/2006 10:19:09 AM PDT
by
JSDude1
(www.pence08.com)
To: Armedanddangerous
Well, there's a separation of powers violation (interstate commerce is under federal jurisdiction) and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution that argue against this twit.
To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Where does this judge think he is? The Ninth Circuit?
To: Right Cal Gal
To me, it's like saying Ford is responsible because a car dealership in a gang occupied area of Los Angeles sold a car to the Crips/Bloods/who the hell ever and then used it in a drive-by shooting. Bingo.
20
posted on
10/27/2006 10:23:11 AM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Snap,bang or fizz works for me)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson