Court Won't Block Suit Against Gun Makers

[deadparrot]

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 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 still could 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_gun_lawsuits

[applegrove]

1. Like anyone else - they need to promote safe use of their stuff or else.

Course we know that gun manufacturers are - as we speak - signing huge cheques to the anti-lawyer lobby.

That's what assholes do if there is a problem. They don't solve the problem - they attack the messenger.

[frozenfishdemon]

4. safe use?

most if not all hand guns, assualt weapons, and in some states shotguns require classes, backround checks, and to be certified..... the problems is is that honest people go through those prosseses, and thats the end. most if not all the crime is done with illegal unregistered weapons, and the Manufacturers cant be held responsible to that..... it should be gun shops and owners of guns, but above that it should be the person who fired the shot.


now correct me if im wrong but assault weapons are illegal in all 50 states unless you have a special permit (which is very hard to get)... so any action done with assault weapons shouldnt be because manufactureres are making them.... it the problem of the people supplying them.

[applegrove]

7. That black market comes from people not storing guns securely in

their homes. I am not saying "no guns". I am saying the NRA should not be upping gun culture so that people collect them en mass.

Where do you think the "black market" comes from?

[newyawker99]

10. Hi frozenfishdemon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[napi21]

2. I'm not sure how I feel about this one. If a firearm malfunctions,

then by all means sue the mfg. If it works properly, why is the mfg. guilty of anything? That's like sueing Ford because they made the Navigator to big and heavy!

Because a user misuses the product doens't make the mfg. responsible.

However, there is the other side of that same coin. Why make these products at all?

[1932]

12. My feeling is that when it's not clear and everyone has enough money

to fully air their arguments, it's probably a good situation for a trial.

I'd rather have a well-informed jury make a decision after hearing both sides make their best arguments according to the rules of evidence in a fair and neutral forum than rashly decide to cut off this debate before it reaches that stage.

[happyslug]

3. All the Supreme Court did was Deny cert on this case.

What appears to have happen, is Beretta asked for a legal review of the Statute by the Supreme Court PRIOR TO GOING TO TRIAL ON THE ISSUE. Like the vast majority of such petition the Court denied cert (The Supreme Court prefer to take cases AFTER TRIAL not before Trial). The Supreme Court denied that petition and sent the case back to the Trial court for a hearing. WHERE BERETTA CAN STILL HAVE THE HEARING AND APPEAL AGAIN TO THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE. That issue is can the District pass this law? I have my questions based on the Commerce clause and full-faith and Credit Clause which were the Constitutional arguments made by Beretta NOT the Second Amendment.

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.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/100305pzor.pdf

[lovuian]

5. Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturers

http://newsfromrussia.com/usa/2005/10/04/64369.html

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital.

An appeals court had said 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 still could 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.

"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, who is now the lawyer for the gun companies.
more...
The Congress are protecting the arms manufactureres!!!

[MrBenchley]

6. Ah, the scummy and corrupt gun lobby....

[freethought]

8. I thought gun manufacturers bought protection via congress.

Am I wrong? I could have sworn there was hulabaloo over some bill or amendment to a bill that gave gun makers a measure of immunity against civil suits. Maybe I was wrong.

[-..__...]

9. The Brady spin on this casts it in a different light.

As if the SCOTUS actually ruled in favor of the gun control crowd... they didn't. The SCOTUS simply didn't grant the case awrit of certiorari. Meaning that they weren't interested in the case and the lower court ruling stands.

It's kind'a moot point anyways. Once the "Lawful Protection of Commerce in Firearms Act" is passed and signed into law, then the Brady BS will have been relegated to the dung heap they deserve.

It's not the first time they pulled this sort of misinformation publicity stunt.

"U.S. SUPREME COURT ALLOWS SUIT AGAINST ASSAULT WEAPON
MANUFACTURERS TO GO FORWARD
For Immediate Release:
10-03-2005

Contact Communications:
[phone]
10/3/05 - The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to block a lawsuit by the District of Columbia, as well as several D.C. residents injured or killed by gunfire, against gun manufacturers under D.C.’s Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act. The gun industry claimed that the Act, which makes assault weapon manufacturers and sellers strictly liable for injuries that result from the criminal use of those guns in the District, violated the U.S. Constitution and asked the Supreme Court to review the case. District Of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

On April 21, 2005, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the District’s strict liability act and allowed claims by nine individual victims of gun violence to go forward under the act, rejecting claims by the gun industry that the act regulates out-of-state gun manufacturers in violation of the interstate commerce clause. On July 20, 2005, the defendants asked the Court to overturn the D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling and strike down the strict liability statute as unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court denied.

The ruling also paves the way for claims brought by the family of Pascal Charlot, the sixth victim of the D.C.-area sniper shootings in 2002. Pascal was shot with a Bushmaster assault rifle and his family brought suit against Bushmaster under the District’s strict liability act.

The strict liability act, the only one of its kind in the nation, provides that anyone who manufactures, imports, or sells an assault weapon or any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot more than more than 12 shots semi-automatically without reloading, is liable for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death caused by the weapon in the District.

Lawsuits brought under the strict liability statute could still be thrown out if legislation granting the gun industry unprecedented immunity from civil liability is passed by Congress. The Senate passed the legislation in July and it is pending in the House.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=685

[WVRevy]

11. Aww...let's all cry for the "poor" gun industry.

Assault rifles and handguns have no purpose other than killing another human being. Sorry, but I wouldn't shed a tear even for a second if people sued the manufacturers into bankruptcy.

And the second amendment should be repealed, but won't be because too many rednecks "like shootin' stuff". Forget that the amendment was never intended to allow John Q Public to own an AK47, or that it WAS intended to provide a regulated militia to be formed in defense against a tyrannical federal government. Just so Billy Joe Bob can get him a 8 point buck come dear season...That's all that matters to them.