Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

1 posted on 10/27/2006 10:10:15 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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....


2 posted on 10/27/2006 10:10:58 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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?
9 posted on 10/27/2006 10:16:42 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Can a state judge even do that?

I don't believe a state judge can rule a federal law unconsititutional.


10 posted on 10/27/2006 10:16:45 AM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Master of Sinanju (emeritus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

Another reason to vote for the pubbies...conservative judges...


12 posted on 10/27/2006 10:17:57 AM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Master of Sinanju (emeritus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.


14 posted on 10/27/2006 10:18:33 AM PDT by Right Cal Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

"considering the actions of the gun industry. "

what do you mean by that, lefty?


16 posted on 10/27/2006 10:18:57 AM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.


18 posted on 10/27/2006 10:19:46 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Where does this judge think he is? The Ninth Circuit?


19 posted on 10/27/2006 10:22:04 AM PDT by Right Cal Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson