A unanimous 3-judge decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has dismissed a municipal lawsuit brought against firearms manufacturers, District of Columbia v. Beretta et al. The court ruled that the suit was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005, and which by its terms applies to all pending and future cases.
In the first part of the decision, the court rules that the congressional act applies to lawsuits brought under D.C.'s Strict Liability Act, which imposes absolute liability on manufacturers for certain firearms injuries. The second part of the decision rejects various arguments that it is unconstitutional for a congressional statute to be applied to a lawsuit that has already been filed.
D.C. lawsuit against gun manufacturers is dismissed:
Fifth Amendment for which “just compensation” must be paid.
Please tell me that this is a rather novel claim, especially when made by a government entity.
All we need, is Bloody Tony (Scalia) to rubber stamp it.
[Insert random inane attack on Justice Scalia.]
Good point, and actually it made even less sense: guns, unlike cars, are actually DESIGNED to kill people.
Meanwhile, I would like to use a gun on that Thunder Run guy.
Considering that the Plaintiffs were upfront that their goal was to drown the industry in litigation expenses in multiple jurisdictions, I won’t shed any tears for them.
On that theory, we could sue car manufacturers and alcohol manufacturers. Both sell legal products that they know will be used (by some) for illegal purposes. Both result in far more deaths than from illegal guns. Shouldn't computer makers also be held responsible for the child porn that can be stored on the devices they make?
Well, here is the direct analogy. In the mid-eighties Georgia (as did a number of other states) banned cars with dark-tinted windows because they were being used in an inordinate amount of drive by shootings and were seen as a threat to law enforcement. Say that the demand for dark tinted windows suddenly tripled in dealerships along the border in Florida and furthermore that several of these vehicles were involved in drive-by shootings and even the shootings of police in Georgia. Yet when the CEO was asked about it, all he says is "we sell vehicles that are perfectly legal in Florida, and by the way, our windows have the darkest tint available on the market", followed by a big wink. Now, his actions and words may not be a crime, or even subject to a civil suit, but you've got to admit, he is one hell of a douchebag.
The Code of Professional Responsibilty had a DR against that sort of thing. Don't the Model Rules have a similar prohibition?
Actually, alcohol and have to be very careful that they don't appear to be advocating the use of their products for illegal purposes and spend millions of dollars trying to encourage people not to drink to excess or drive drunk, both of which presumably negatively affect their bottom line. Likewise, I have never seen a car ad that touts a vehicle as the perfect one to outrun the cops with or with plenty of hidden panels perfect for concealing contraband.
And while I don't think manufacturers have been sued, certainly many providers of alcohol, from parents to bar and restaraunt owners, to corporations sponsoring company christmas parties, have been held liable when someone has gone out and caused an accident after getting drunk on alcohol supplied by another.
Or do you think there's something douchebaggy about abortion clinics catering to clients from a state with more restrictive laws?
Do you feel the same way about liquor stores bordering dry counties? Do you think they should not sell to people from across the street, because they're likely to take their purchases home, thus breaking the laws of Across-The-Street County?
Even today, some folks who say that you cannot keep marijuana out of America and that you cannot "legislate morality" want to say that we can keep out guns. What if the legitimate gun manufacturers in the U.S., Italy, and Germany were run out of business by tort cases? You would see counterfeit guns coming in from countries such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They'd be untraceable.
Just because you think something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it is illegal. Actually the gun shops in question outside of Chicago did know (or at least thought) that the guns were being purchased for illegal purchases, as the undercover cops clearly told the sellers they were making straw purchases for felons (only fancy legal manuevering by lawyers got that evidence excluded).
Your argument about dry counties is not valid as dry counties prohibit the sale (not the possession) of alcohol. You are right though that some jurisdictions (Kansas and Utah come to mind) do have laws that purport to prohibit the importation of alcohol from out of state. I don't know if Kansas ever had stings at border liquor stores in Missouri but I do know that Sundays (when you couldn't buy liquour in Kansas) the border stores in Missouri did some of their best business when I lived in Kansas City.
If you've seen an ad where a gun manufacturer showcased its guns as being the favorites of gang bangers and pimps or otherwise glorifying their illegal use, I'd like to know.
Obviously I was being hyperbolic, but the point was made (inaccurately) that alcohol manufacturers would not be held liable for making such ads. There is little doubt they would. And both cigarette and drug (e.g., the recent Oxycontin case) manufacturers have been held liable for the damage their legal products caused--even when used legally and as intended.
As a further point, if a gun manufacturer now decided to go after the gang-banger and pimp market and did market his guns as "best for drive-bys" or paid to have his gun prominently placed in the next 50 cent video, apparently this law would completely indemnify him from any kind of action.
Oxycontin mis-represented their product. Gun manufacturers seen to participate in firearm safety education.
You have changed the argument. Straw sales are an entirely different issue. They are plainly illegal, and anyone making a straw sale should be prosecuted.
There is, however, no basis for prosecuting somebody who makes a legal sale, even if he or she does so 3 feet from the border of, for example, a non-gun jurisdiction like DC. That situation is no different from liquor stores or abortion clinics. Viva federalism.
glangston,Really? I hadn't heard that; got a link for that? ["Oxycontin" is the name of the product, not the company.]
i must be daft, because it was not obvious to me. which firearms advertisements or marketing gimmicks were you analogizing to, exactly, and why do you feel your analogy was valid?
Frederick, I don't know about a 5th amendment taking, but I never have understood what equitable basis there is for allowing statutes to apply to pending lawsuits.
Thanks for the link.
Well he is dead wrong about Utah's alcohol laws. Scotch is cheaper there than In Idaho. Less state tax. I used to live near the border.
How could anyone know what the market could legally bear?? Unless there are some laws restricting quantity of firearms in Illinois (wouldn't surprise me) there is no way to quantify the potential number of sales. The manufacturer of any product that could be used in the commission of a crime (auto, knife, gun, rope...) knows that at some point the product will be misused. How can that possibly be stopped by the manufacturer, especially if it happens years later? Those are completely specious arguments.
Guns are designed to fire a projectile. They are only a tool, and as Shane said (maybe slight misquote): A gun is only a tool, as good or as bad as the man that uses it.
It is about time VC posters understood the difference between a tool and its user.
Oh please. Spare me the judgmental harumphing.
Nobody is more in favor of blaming criminals for criminal conduct than I am, and nobody is less in favor of demonizing firearms. I was simply pointing out that suing a gun manufacturer because a gun killed someone is even MORE bizarre than suing a car manufacturer for a hit-and-run.
Sort of like suing the manufacturer of rat poison because the stuff.... poisoned somebody.
In any event, you are quite wrong. The vast majority of guns are, in fact, designed to kill people, animals, whatever. Call it a tool and quote Shane all you want, but that's not contrary to my view. A firearm is, in most cases, a TOOL for firing a projectile into a living thing for the purpose of harming or killing that living thing.