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.
Now that you mention it, the last time I changed my strings I pricked a finger and it BLED. Can I sue D'Addario for my pain, suffering and "mental trauma"?
After all, I'm soooooo traumatized that now I'll have to take my guitars in to the shop and PAY for them to change them.
:-)
I was thinking about people who uncontrollably take their used guitar strings (could be new ones, but why waste a new one?) and go strangle people.
"When guitar strings are outlawed, only outlaws will have guitar strings."
Garrotte - sheesh, if someone's strong enough, they could easily kill people with guitar strings. Well, in Great Britain they're outlawing more and more things - even long kitchen knives, since people use them to cut each other up. I guess guitar players there will soon have to use nylon strings only.
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.
Love those Mountain guns, don't have one now, but plan to some day. I have two friends with 57s, really nice square butt guns. Let me know if you decide to sell yours again, but don't count on getting them back.
This says that the Chief Justice was in no way involved. Still can't find who voted of how the decision was made. But why wasn't the Chief involved?
No. 05-118
Title:
Beretta U.S.A. Corporation, et al., Petitioners
v.
District of Columbia, et al.
Docketed: July 22, 2005
Lower Ct: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case Nos.: (03-CV-24, 03-CV-38)
Decision Date: April 21, 2005
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 20 2005 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 22, 2005)
Aug 2 2005 Waiver of right of respondents District of Columbia to respond filed.
Aug 5 2005 Waiver of right of respondents Bryant Lawson, James Foster-El, Michelle Foster-El, Patrick Mahoney, Laura Wallace, Madilia Marsh-Williams, Ahmad Vaughan, Avery Blue, Gregory Ferguson to respond filed.
Aug 15 2005 Motion to defer consideration filed by petitioners Beretta U.S.A. Corporation, et al.
Aug 17 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2005.
Aug 22 2005 Brief amici curiae of Utah, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 22 2005 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 26 2005 Opposition from individual respondents Bryant Lawson, et al. to petitioners' motion to defer consideration filed. (Distributed)
Sep 16 2005 Reply of petitioners in support of their motion to defer consideration filed. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2005 Motion to defer consideration filed by petitioner DENIED. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Oct 3 2005 Petition DENIED. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Theodore B. Olson Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (202) 955-8500
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Party name: Beretta U.S.A. Corporation, et al.
Attorneys for Respondent:
James C. McKay Jr. Senior Assistant Attorney General (202) 724-5690
Appellate Division
441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Party name: District of Columbia, et al.
Eric J. Mogilnicki Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (202) 663-6000
2445 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Party name: Bryant Lawson, James Foster-El, Michelle Foster-El, Patrick Mahoney, Laura Wallace, Madilia Marsh-Williams, Ahmad Vaughan, Avery Blue, Gregory Ferguson
Other:
Mark L. Shurtleff Attorney General of Utah (801) 366-0100
236 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Party name: Utah, et al.
Christopher P. Johnson Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP (212) 506-1700
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Party name: National Association of Manufacturers, et al.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/05-118.htm
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.