Federal Court Dismisses Another Lawsuit Against Gun Industry

[Desertdog]

It would be nice if the gun industry could recover their legal cost.

Federal Court Dismisses Another Lawsuit Against Gun Industry
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200801/NAT20080111c.html

(CNSNews.com) - A federal court has once again invoked a 2005 law in dismissing a lawsuit filed against 25 gun manufacturers on behalf of nine "gun crime" victims.

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is intended to protect the gun industry from politically motivated lawsuits.

The Second Amendment Foundation applauded the unanimous decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

"The courts, and the American public, realize that manufacturers, no matter who they are, cannot be blamed for the actions of individuals who misuse their products, whether they are golf clubs, baseball bats, automobiles or firearms," said Second Amendment Foundation Founder Alan Gottlieb said.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2000, but according to the opinion written by Associate Judge Michael William Farrell, the 2005 law required the court to dismiss the case. Judge Farrell wrote that Congress, in passing the law, wanted to "prohibit [lawsuits] against manufacturers ... for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms products ..." Allowing the lawsuit to proceed "would, in our view, frustrate Congress' clear intention."

It was lawsuits like this one that led to passage of the federal law in the first place, Gottlieb said.

"We're proud of the tenacity shown by American firearms makers, and their refusal to be bullied by this kind of legal harassment," Gottlieb said in a news release.

"Such lawsuits threaten the gun rights of all law-abiding citizens by posing a threat to the very life of the nation's firearms industry. It is no secret that such lawsuits have been launched not simply to blame gun companies for out-of-control crime, but to put them out of business through a financial and legal war of attrition."

A federal judge in California dismissed a "public nuisance" lawsuit against a gun manufacturer and a gun distributor in March 2006, and that was the first time the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was used to block such a lawsuit.

 

[MakAttak]

Yet another reason for tort reform in this country...

WARNING! RANT AHEAD!!

Which will never happen so long as Democrats have any sort of power (trial lawyers being a HUGE part of their contributers...)

Add to that the fact that almost all politicians are lawyers anyway...

RANT OVER. PLEASE DISREGARD IF THIS BOTHERS YOU!

 

[damien]

The only "tort reform" that can possibly ever work is to have an administration that consistently appoints judges that read the law plainly like this court has done. Simply writing new laws won't work if the justices ignore them. There have already been cases where judges have ignored The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It is up to the appeals courts to reverse them, and this is starting to happen. In general, we need new judges, not new laws.

The Bush Administration has been very successful in appointing good judges, BTW IMHO.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Yet another victory for sanity and rationale. So now, people cant sue GM when a drunk driver plows a family down in his Suburban. I love a world that makes sense.

 

[Standing Wolf]

In general, we need new judges, not new laws.

Bingo. We have two full generations of leftist extremist so-called "judges" sitting on both state and federal benches. They should be removed from office and replaced with judges who understand the importance of reading the law as it is rather than as they might wish it to be.

 

[MakAttak]

Actually, new judges won't stop this.

The people wanting to attack the firearm industry can STILL force the industry into court, paying lawyers, dealing with paperwork, etc...

This is even when the judges dismiss it.

NOW if we get someone appointing judges who are more "liberal" in their interpretation of the law, the industry will then have to deal with a long lawsuit until someone finally rules it's illegal.

What we need is a system requiring that the losers pay when they lose a civil case. Not only would this protect industries from lawsuits, it will discourage lawyers from "rolling the dice" on questionable lawsuits.

 

[Desertdog]

What we need is a system requiring that the losers pay when they lose a civil case.

I totally agree. This was a frivolous case from the beginning and there should be some recourse for the manufacturers to recoup their expenses.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Actually, new judges won't stop this.

The people wanting to attack the firearm industry can STILL force the industry into court, paying lawyers, dealing with paperwork, etc...

This is even when the judges dismiss it.

New judges will help a lot, though.

Remember, THIS case was dismissed at the appeals level. I should never have gotten that far. What should happen, and what would happen if we had judges who actually go by the law, would be that the defense would begin the trial with a motion to dismiss based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, plus any other laws in the jurisdiction pertaining to frivolous lawsuits -- and the judge would grant the dismissal.

Obviously, the difference in cost between a dismissal 5 minutes after walking into court compared with going all the way through trial and then through the appeals process is "significant."

 

[Deavis]

New judges will help a lot, though.

Don't give judges teh chance to interpret 20,000 some odd laws in novel ways to suit their agenda. How about if they just had to deal with one gun "law", like, oh say, the 2A? Impossible of course unless their is a quantum shift in our government, but one can be wishful from time to time.