Court Refuses to Block Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers

[Rusher]

Just business as usual I guess

LINK


Court Refuses to Block Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers
Skip directly to the full story.
By Gina Holland Associated Press Writer

Published: Oct 3, 2005

ADVERTISEMENT

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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., 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

 

[MechAg94]

So did they refuse to review the case or did they vote on it?

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

This whole thing is crazy. Not just "I disagree with them" crazy, but crazy crazy.

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., Glock Inc., and other companies.

Ok, we all know that assault weapon is Newspeak, but Smith & Wesson and Glock have never made long arms or any other arms that could be classified as assault weapons. All of Glocks' products, save the 18, are available in California, which has its own AWB which is more strict than the Federal AWB was (RIP). So they are being sued for the damage caused by assault weapons which a) exist only as a fantasy within Sarah Brady's twisted little mind and b) which Glock and S&W never manufactured anyway, under anyone's definition.

And this is in addition to all the other stupidity: how can a company be liable for the criminal actions of third parties, esp. in this case where their products are not even legal to possess at all within DC?

Why don't we all just sue everyone for everything whenever anything goes wrong. Like that bombing in Bali a few days ago. It didn't do anything to me or anyone I know, but it did hurt some people and I didn't like it. I know that Sarah Brady had nothing to do with it, but I don't like her, and that bombing was a criminal act, so I think I'll sue Sarah Brady for it.

To really understand these cases you have to understand the Wookie Defense, which I post here in its entirity:

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! (Background: Damnit! What? He's using the Chewbacca defense!) Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

And alas, I cannot understand it, therefore I cannot understand this case.

 

[Old Fuff]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ruled last spring, and said:

"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,"

And now the Supreme Court has (as they often do) refused to hear an appeal of the lower court's decision, which will leave it standing ...

And that's the reason the selection of judges is so important. Once in place they serve for life, or until they retire.

NOW HOPEFULLY SOME PEOPLE WILL WAKE UP!

 

[NCP24]

Political BS if you ask me!

Washington, DC
District Of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 00-0000428 (Superior Court, District of Columbia)

On January 20, 2000, the Legal Action Project joined the District of Columbia as it became the 30th public entity to sue the gun industry when it filed a complaint against 25 companies that manufacture and distribute guns that have been used in committing murders, assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes in the District.

The lawsuit is a response to the terrible effect that gun violence has had and continues to have on the District. Between 1992 and the end of 1998, there were more than 2,000 firearm homicides committed in the District. Guns are used in a vast number of other crimes committed in the District. For example, in 1998, there were 1,336 robberies and 803 aggravated assaults involving guns in the District. In just one recent year, from August 1997 through July 1998, the District Metropolitan Police Department recovered 3,292 guns used in crime.

The District's gun laws are among the strictest of any jurisdiction in the nation. Since 1976, the District has prohibited the possession of unregistered firearms, and banned the registration of all handguns, as well as automatic and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms. Despite that, thousands of guns made by these defendants continue to enter the District where they are illegally possessed and used in crime because of defendants' lax distribution system that guarantees the District's gun laws will be circumvented.

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 asks the court to enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from continuing their negligent distribution practices. The District also seeks an award of money damages to compensate it for the severe financial harm it has suffered in the past because of illegal gun possession and use brought about by defendants' conduct. Under the Health Care Assistance Reimbursement Act of 1984, the District has an express right to recover from defendants the millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses it has incurred for Medicaid and other health care assistance to victims of shootings caused by defendants' actions. The District also has a right under a statute to recover all costs of assistance and compensation to its police officers, firefighters, and other employees who have suffered injuries from gun violence because of defendants' actions. The District also requests that the defendants be required to pay punitive damages because their actions have been egregious and reckless.

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.

On April 21, 2000, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of all of the District's claims. The District filed an opposition on June 16, 2000. The American Jewish Congress filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the District and in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The court heard argument on the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings on April 13, 2001, and finally ruled on December 16, 2002. The court found that plaintiffs case against the gun industry for strict liability, negligent distribution, and public nuisance can not proceed to trial. Judge Long's decision was primarily based upon the fact that the guns used to injure and kill the plaintiffs were not recovered and that she found defendants have no duty of care towards the plaintiffs.

The District appealed this decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals. On April 29, 2004, a three-judge panel upheld the District's strict liability act. The Court also upheld the District's right to recover medical costs paid to care for anyone injured by a gun covered by the strict liability act. However, the Court flouted the trend of appellate decisions for cities against the gun industry - in Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, and Indiana - by dismissing the District's public nuisance and negligence claims.

The District asked the full court rehear these claims and Defendants cross-appealed on the issue of the constitutionality of the strict liability act on May 13, 2004. See District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A. et al., Nos. 03-CV-24, 03-CV-38. The D.C. Court of Appeals granted the request for rehearing, vacating the panel's decision and on November 18, 2004, the Brady Center filed an amicus brief, along with D.C. based groups, asking the D.C. Court of Appeals to rule on behalf of the District and reverse the trial court's decision. A hearing was held before the full court on January 11, 2004, at which Brian Siebel of the Legal Action Project argued on behalf of amicus.

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 District¹s strict liability statute as unconstitutional, arguing that that the statute regulates out-of-state gun manufacturers in violation of the interstate commerce clause.

The Legal Action Project represents the District in its lawsuit, as co-counsel with the District's Office of Corporation Counsel; the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=22

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. BERETTA, U.S.A.
Frightening decision in District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A. today: the highest court in D.C. upheld the legality of a provision that allowed victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers for the misuse of their products. (The law in question applies only to "machine guns", but then defines "machine guns" to include semi-automatic weapons with large magazines.) As Professor Volokh notes, this has the effect of permitting the D.C. city council to regulate gun sales nationwide. The Cato Institute's Gene Healy and Robert A. Levy have written elsewhere that national litigation reform legislation to bar such gun lawsuits is a violation of federalism principles, but the Beretta case shows how misguided that position is: individual states (and, in the case of DC, a single city) can create liability regimes that affect interstate commerce nationally. Healy and Levy suggest that the remedy for businesses is to "withdraw from doing business in a state that has an oppressive tort regime" but that doesn't help gun manufacturers who don't do business in the District of Columbia to begin with. http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/002258.html

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let me see if I understand this.

The Supreme Court feels it has sufficient jurisdiction and interest to rule that the growing and consumption of an herbal substance, not intended for sale and never leaving the owner's own property, let alone crossing state lines, is subject to consideration due to "interstate commerce." But a group of manufacturers who are threatened with lawsuits originating in a jurisdiction where they have no business, have no presence, and in which any acts for which these manufacturers may be sued would be carried out by third parties over whom the manufacturers have no control and with whom they have no relationship, cannot seek redress under a claim that their right to interstate commerce has been unduly handicapped.

Does that about sum it up?

Nope. I was right the first time ... I don't understand it.

 

[waynesan]

Supreme Court Decision??

When the SC announces it has made a ruling such as this does this mean that each member of the court had to vote? Do they announce how each member voted?

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

The American Jewish Congress filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the District and in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

 

[Spot77]

a particular class of firearms whose lethal nature far outweighs their utility," Judge Michael Farrell wrote.

Yes, according to at least one idiot. :banghead:

 

[GunGoBoom]

So did they refuse to review the case or did they vote on it?

Sounds like certiorari denied, so the high court has NOT spoken on the merits of the issue. The lower courts' decision will thus be upheld, for now... ridiculous.

 

[model 649]

"American Jewish Council"? What, are these the SLOW LEARNERS?
Josh

 

[Lemon328i]

The Court doesn't waste its time on cases that will shortly be overturned by Federal Law. The basic premise in Beretta vs District of Columbia is that the morons in DC passed a law that imposes "strict liability" on firearms manufacturers. This means that a plaintiff does not have to show that the manufacturer was responsible for misuse. It is a terrible law and should be struck down, but it will be struck down when the House passes the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It has already cleared the Senate.

I have no doubt the conservative Court block's clerks knew that the case would be thrown out when the new Federal law is enacted and advised that the case be denied cert. Remember that Chief Justice Roberts was on the Appeals panel that allowed the case to go forward, so he is familiar with the case.

The Court can only hear so many cases a year and must choose to go with cases that will not be resolved by pending Federal legislation (especially when that legislation is a lock for passage and the President's signature).

 

[Standing Wolf]

...Smith & Wesson and Glock have never made long arms or any other arms that could be classified as assault weapons.

Actually, Smith & Wesson used to make rifles, or at least, import them from Japan and slap its logotype on them.

 

[Kjervin]

I always wondered if Baretta, etc. upon losing and having to pay damages, could then turn around and sue the district for failing in their responsibilty to keep the weapons out of the district in the first place. I mean, does not the district have some law enforcement responsibility to enforce their oun statutes? Is is not because the district did not keep the guns out (after all, there is no legal way for them to get in) that Beretta, etc. has to pay damages. I'm not sure you even need strict liability to make that case, negligence would do. I guess getting a judge to rule in their favor would be tough.

Also seem like there should be some jurisdictional problems. How do they sue them in DC when none of the activities of Beretta, etc. took place in DC? Can they get a change of venue to one of the states that manufacture took place in? Oh, wait, it's not a tort anywhere else!

Kj

 

[Camp David]

...a particular class of firearms whose lethal nature far outweighs their utility," Judge Michael Farrell wrote....

Toyotas or Mazdas?

Oh... Judge Farrell was speaking about firearms! Oh ok... So why not
Toyotas or Mazdas? What's to block lawsuit against Auto Manufacturers based on precedent set by lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers?

And therein is the key to this case!

 

[NCP24]

What's to block lawsuit against Auto Manufacturers based on precedent set by lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers?

Good point.

 

[Mnemesyne]

I'm still not understanding how the manufacturer is responsible when a weapon has to travel through at least 2 sets of hands (manufacturer/retailer possible 3rd party if retailer orders from supplier) before ending up in the final set (the consumer)...

What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming someone else *sigh* I certainly didn't blame Beretta for the bullet in my leg.....that was the doing of the idiot who shot me

 

[Waitone]

Camp David is right on the money. We here on THR get all caught up in our underwear over the Second Amendment implications. Implications are far larger than our concerns. You make a product in the US and you had better be watching carefully because there will be no end to the litigation. I would hope gun advocacy groups are sitting in the lobbies of Ford, GM, Chrysler, et al because that is where the litigation will start.

 

[Crosshair]

So who wants to sue a car maker if this goes through.