Defensive Carry banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ken Klukowski : High Court Rejects Challenge to NRA?s Signature Law - Townhall.com

In 2005, the National Rifle Association of America enacted a law that probably saved the American gun-making industry from bankruptcy. And just this last week, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to this landmark legislation, ensuring this law stays on the books to preserve America’s culture of lawful firearm ownership.

For years, opponents of the Second Amendment sought to eliminate gun rights by eliminating guns. Anti-gun groups, working with big-city mayors like Michael Bloomberg of New York City, devised a scheme to rid America of firearms.

They filed product liability suits, alleging that firearm manufacturers should be held liable for any injury caused by a firearm. And not just a gun made by that particular gun-maker; the suits go after every gun-maker for every gun injury.

This approach was based on the legal strategy used against Big Tobacco. It’s a liberal theory called market-share liability. Because smokers use cigarettes of different brands, a person who gets lung cancer after twenty years of smoking isn’t sure how much of that cancer is traced to any particular tobacco company.

So the courts adopted a theory from the infamous Clinton-Reno-Holder Justice Department, saying that every tobacco company should be held liable for whatever percentage of cigarettes they sell in the market. So for example, if Camel accounts for 30% of all cigarettes sold, then Camel is liable for 30% of the damages in any injury lawsuit.

The gun-grabbers pushed the same theory here. They said that gun makers should be held liable for any injury, and that because it’s often unknown what gun model caused an injury (if the firearm is never recovered), then every gun-maker must pay according to how many guns they sell in this country.

Holding gun-makers liable for the actions of criminals is absurd. That’s like holding Bic accountable for arsonists, or Buick for drunk-driving crashes, or Craftsman for an assault perpetrated with a hammer.

A gun is a tool like any of these other items. If properly made and lawfully sold, there should be no liability.

But these anti-gun fanatics, with the help of the Brady Center, almost succeeded. They brought nationwide suits in the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the nation, and were heading towards a massive judgment what would have driven gun-makers into bankruptcy. Along the way, legal costs for gun makers had already mounted into the hundreds of millions of dollars, putting all those companies on the ropes.

In response, the NRA made stopping these predatory lawsuits its top legislative priority. Every anti-gun Democrat, to please their trial-lawyer bosses, worked furiously to stop the bill, and succeeded for years.

But 2002 and 2004 saw historic victories for pro-gun candidates, mostly Republicans. Consequently, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was finally passed and signed into law in 2005 to stop these junk lawsuits.

Anti-gun forces immediately pressed their court cases, arguing that the new law didn’t apply to current cases, despite the fact that the law was explicitly retroactive to cover all lawsuits. They only found one New York federal judge willing to go along with them, who was promptly reversed on appeal to the Second Circuit.

The only way left to stop this law from fulfilling its promise to keep America’s firearm heritage alive was to have it struck down as unconstitutional.

Predictably, that’s exactly what anti-gun forces tried to do next. Alleging one ridiculous theory after another about how this federal law violated the U.S. Constitution, three lawsuits were pushed all the way through the legal system to the U.S. Supreme Court. In March of 2009, the Court refused to grant certiorari to review Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta (the latter being the pet-project of the rabidly anti-gun Mike Bloomberg).

And last week on Dec. 14, the Supreme Court rejected what will hopefully be the last such ridiculous suit, Adames v. Beretta.

The right to bear arms is essential to liberty itself. It’s an insurance policy, enshrined in the Second Amendment of our Constitution to make sure America would always remain the Land of the Free.

For 138 years, the National Rifle Association has fought to protect this right for future generations. This 2005 tort-reform law is one of the NRA’s greatest achievements in protecting our Second Amendment rights.

They’re doubtless celebrating this victory at NRA headquarters, as well they should. And it’s welcome news for all of us who are among America’s 90 million gun owners.

Merry Christmas, firearm owners. Don’t forget to thank the NRA for this long-awaited Christmas present.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,597 Posts
In 2005, the National Rifle Association of America enacted a law...

Mmmmmm...:confused:...am I reading this correctly?

While thrilled at the outcome:congrats:, I doubt that the NRA enacted any laws...am I correct?:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
In 2005, the National Rifle Association of America enacted a law...

Mmmmmm...:confused:...am I reading this correctly?

While thrilled at the outcome:congrats:, I doubt that the NRA enacted any laws...am I correct?:rolleyes:
Reporters aren't what they used to be. So many poorly worded stories. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the NRA backed, supported, and lobbied for this law, I doubt they enacted it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
The error of the reporting having already been noted for the less astute among us, I am happy with the decision rendered.

Biker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Alleging one ridiculous theory after another about how this federal law violated the U.S. Constitution...
I love it.

Antis arguing in the name of the Constitution. Makes me want to :rofl: and :aargh4: at the same time.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,833 Posts
"Anti-gun groups, working with big-city mayors like Michael Bloomberg of New York City, devised a scheme to rid America of firearms."

Can we still sue Mayor Bloomberg for being directly liable and responsible for all crimes committed in NYC?

If "gun crime" can go back to the manufacturer then "New York City Crime" should go right back to the Mayor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,190 Posts
"Anti-gun groups, working with big-city mayors like Michael Bloomberg of New York City, devised a scheme to rid America of firearms."

Can we still sue Mayor Bloomberg for being directly liable and responsible for all crimes committed in NYC?

If "gun crime" can go back to the manufacturer then "New York City Crime" should go right back to the Mayor.
WOW! I like that one, this is something the victims rights people should consider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
"Anti-gun groups, working with big-city mayors like Michael Bloomberg of New York City, devised a scheme to rid America of firearms."

Can we still sue Mayor Bloomberg for being directly liable and responsible for all crimes committed in NYC?

If "gun crime" can go back to the manufacturer then "New York City Crime" should go right back to the Mayor.

Works for me.:35:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Hmm... so if I drink beer for 30 years and develop liver cancer, I should sue all the breweries for their share of the damages? Who would I sue if I was driving [a Toyota] drunk [Jack Daniels] , smoking a cigarette [Marlboro], texting on my cell phone [Nokia], and crash into a utility pole [Ma Bell], while shooting [Smith & Wesson] out the window? I know somebody owe's me cash for my injuries.

I'm really not buying the idea that liability should go back to the manufacturer for a consumer's abuse of a legal product. Once you buy it, you are the only person who determines what to do with it.

The scariest thing about this article is the fact that juries have bought this logic before. Juries are made up of regular citizens -- this doesn't say much about our ability to recognize when we are being mislead.

Thank God we have the NRA to enact landmark laws that preserve our culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Personal responibility and accountability has gone out the window a long time ago. What a shame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
And Bloomberg just (barely) got (bought) himself a 3rd term. Helps me understand that "Republican" doesn't mean much. NYC is not going to change for a long, long time. Thank God some of the rest of the country has it's head on straight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Personal responibility and accountability has gone out the window a long time ago. What a shame.
This is something I realize about 50 times a day.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
I love it.

Antis arguing in the name of the Constitution. Makes me want to :rofl: and :aargh4: at the same time.
Well, the 2nd Amendment and freedom of Speech is the 2 they pick on the most. LOL.

Glad it turned out the way that it did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
This is why I'm a life member. I know that people of like mind must band together to fight for their rights. The NRA has done, and continues to do, an excellent job of defending our rights. I'm glad the Supreme Court has upheld this particular win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
Great news!! I renewed my membership with the NRA last week. Merry Christmas, indeed.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top