Bush Signs "protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act"

[El Rojo]

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

And whose right is that? The defendant's or the plantiff's? Does common law allow for Congress to limit what you can sue for? Oh I understand "shall be preserved" as much as you try to sound like a pompous, arrogant know it all. How about you answer those questions before you attempt to insult our intelligence again. And be sure to use evidence in your answers.

 

[buzz_knox]

And whose right is that? The defendant's or the plantiff's? Does common law allow for Congress to limit what you can sue for? Oh I understand "shall be preserved" as much as you try to sound like a pompous, arrogant know it all. How about you answer those questions before you attempt to insult our intelligence again. And be sure to use evidence in your answers.

Congress has the authority under the Consitution to establish the jurisdiction of the federal court system, except for some matters under which jurisdiction is specifically granted.

 

[K-Romulus]

gun grabbers shot themselves in the foot

If BS laws like the DC strict liability act weren't passed, then this law Bush signed would not be needed.

DC's law says that any manufacturer of a "machine gun" (defined as any firearm that can possibly be made to fire semi-auto more than 12 times without reloading) is liable for all damages "caused" by said "machine gun." Even though said firearms are banned from legal ownership in DC!!!:banghead:

The law spawned several lawsuits right now with four plaintiffs . . the kicker is that none of them know what gun was used to shoot them!!!

Go to www.gunlawsuits(dot)org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=22 to read the gun grabber description:

The District asserts a claim against each defendant under the District of Columbia Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990. This statute, 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. The statute imposes strict liability, requiring no proof of any defect in the gun or any negligence or fault in the defendant's actions. The District's complaint also asserts tort claims against each defendant under the law of negligence and public nuisance.

The District is joined in the suit by individual plaintiffs: Bryant Lawson, one of the many District residents who have suffered devastating injuries because of the gun violence fostered by the defendants' business practices - he was shot several times with a banned semi-automatic handgun on January 26, 1997, just days before he was scheduled to start basic training in the Marine Corps; family members of Helen Foster-Els - Ms. Foster-Els, a 55-year old grandmother, was fatally shot in front of her home on June 21, 1999, as she tried to usher neighborhood children to safety after a gun battle between two groups of young men suddenly erupted; family members of Mary Caitrin Mahoney - Ms. Mahoney was shot and killed during a July 1997 robbery at a Starbuck's coffee shop in Washington; parents of Andre Wallace and Natasha Marsh, two students at Wilson High School in the District who were fatally shot while unloading groceries from a car in the driveway of Marsh's home by a carload of juveniles who followed them home after a fistfight at a high school basketball game; Ahmad Vaughan, Avery Blue, and Gregory Ferguson, three young people seriously injured by shots from an AK-47 type rifle in a drive-by shooting. The individuals seek to recover damages for their devastating injuries - which are separate and different from the harm incurred by the District - and to accomplish the goal shared by the District of encouraging the gun industry to reform itself and prevent injuries to others in the future.

However, on April 21, 2005, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the panel's rulings, dismissing the District's claims alleging the industry could be liable for distribution practices that fuel the illegal market. The Court again upheld the District's strict liability act and allowed the individuals plaintiffs' claims under that act to go forward, rejecting claims by the gun industry that the statute was unconstitutional under the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The District also retains the right to recover medical costs paid to care for anyone injured by a gun covered by the strict liability act. The ruling will allow the claims by nine individual victims of gun violence to proceed toward trial against gun makers under the strict liability act.

On July 20, 2005, Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court, asking the Court to overturn the D.C. Court of Appeals and strike down the District_s strict liability statute as unconstitutional, arguing that that the statute regulates out-of-state gun manufacturers in violation of the interstate commerce clause. But on October 3, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision, allowing the plaintiffs' claims under the strict liability at to go forward.

It should be noted that now-Justice Roberts voted to uphold the DC law when he heard the case as a judge on the appeals court . . .

 

[El Tejon]

Hoozah!

We, as gun owners, need to stop playing defense and need to enact more legislation against the anti-gunners!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

And whose right is that? The defendant's or the plantiff's? Does common law allow for Congress to limit what you can sue for? Oh I understand "shall be preserved" as much as you try to sound like a pompous, arrogant know it all. How about you answer those questions before you attempt to insult our intelligence again. And be sure to use evidence in your answers.

I think you have misinterpreted my comment.

My "what part of shall be preserved do you not understand" was supposed to be taken as a play on the "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand" that 2nd amendment supporters frequently use. It was not meant to insult you, or imply that I didnt think you knew what it meant. I assumed you would know what "shall be preserved" meant, and that you would see the analogy.

So, allow me to apologize, I was not intending that as an insult, but as a rhetorical question. I was not trying to be arrogant, or pompous, and if you re-read my previous posts, you will see I said already that I am not sure if this law is constitutional or not. I certainly don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I am perplexed as to how this law is constitutional, given what the 7th amendment says.

Now, I will try to answer your question. I take the 7th Amendment to be an individual right of citizens to seek redress for grievances in the court system. The person seeking redress would be the plaintiff. I believe that "common law" is the same as civil law, at least I have heard other people say that. I thus take this amendment to mean that an individual has a right to sue whoever he wants, if it is for more than 20 dollars. This right would appear to me to be just as guaranteed as the 2nd Amendment. Based on the 7th Amendment, I do not see where Congress has the power to limit lawsuits. Maybe that power is granted elsewhere in the Constitution. If you know, please tell me, I am just trying to figure out how to justify this law given my limited knowledge of all this. It appears to me that this law is counter to the 7th Amendment.

Tell me where I am wrong. I apologize for angering you and distracting this thread.

 

[Hawk]

Lone Gunman is in good company. Ron Paul of Texas voted against S397. He voted against the similar bill last year, NRA downgraded Paul to a "B", setting off GOA, instituting a series of internicene squabbles that should have been entertaining, but weren't.

Make the plaintiffs attorneys reimburse the company for legal expenses.

That sort of reform would have worked but it just hasn't ever gotten off the ground. Regrettably, the protection act was needed because real reform has the looks of an impossible dream.

In other words, I don't see the junk lawsuits ever stopping, short of S397. Lone Gunman, his heirs or assigns, or anyone else should be able to litigate against GM for a death caused by a drunk driver or Bushmaster for the death caused by a 'sniper'. With the right kind of reform, neither would bear fruit. However, MADD, united with Soros, is NOT bringing interminable suits against GM. Brady did manage to drag 2.5M out of Bushmaster on bogus grounds and were just getting a good head of steam built up.

LG and Ron Paul, IMO are right to have misgivings. However, given the wormy state of tort reform, I don't see any choice other than to hold one's nose and celebrate S397.

We didn't make the rules of engagement. They did. The good guys won anyway.

 

[DonP]

How many losses?

IIRC, this passage and signature by the Prez instantly killed a bunch of pending and even some active litigation against gun manufacturers.

Does anybody have a list of all the pending BS suits that were floating out there?

I think our boy Daley had at least one hanging in the wind.

The Brady bunch says they are going to "take this to court to prove it's unconstitutional". I think that's a great way to use up their meager donations and membership dues. This passed by a wide margin of victory and even the Dem's won't answer their phone calls anymore.

 

[El Rojo]

Thanks Lone Gunman, I apologize myself and will get back to what we were discussing. I don't know either really. Congress makes all sorts of rules all the time. What is good and what isn't? Then we get into the slippery slope argument of if they can limit this, they can limit that. I honestly don't know on this one. I like the protection of commerce because it makes sense. You should not be able to sue someone for something they did not do. This protects the gun manufacturers and gun dealers from outrageous gun law suits. Sure it would be nice if you sued and lost, you would have to pay the other guy's bills and a penalty, but it isn't that way. Shouldn't we have a means of determining if a case should proceed or not? Again, I don't know. I have work to do and will have to come back to this one.