Supreme Court Rejects Old Anti-Gun Cases

[mikehaas]

Just got this from an NRA BoD friend, originally came from Chris Cox, Director of NRA-ILA.

On Monday, March 9, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in two key cases where cities and anti-gun activists had tried to hold the firearms industry liable for the criminal acts of third parties.

Both cases were originally filed in 2000, and were among the last in the wave of cases filed by cities.

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was one of several cases against the industry brought before Judge Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York. The suit claimed, among other things, that firearms industry business practices created a public nuisance in the city. In October 2005, the day after enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), defendants moved to dismiss the suit based on the PLCAA. Though Judge Weinstein agreed with the manufacturers that the law was constitutional, he denied the motion to dismiss, claiming that the alleged “nuisance” was a criminal nuisance that would make the case fall under the PLCAA’s exception for suits based on violations of statutes “applicable to” the sale of firearms.

The manufacturers appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Judge Weinstein. First, the panel agreed with the manufacturers that the PLCAA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the First and Tenth Amendments. Second, the panel reasoned that the exception for statutes “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms was meant to include gun control laws, not general statutes that apply to all kinds of businesses. (The fact that Sen. Larry Craig and other sponsors of the PLCAA specifically said they intended to cut off the New York suit was an important factor in the industry’s favor.) The city appealed to the Supreme Court.

The second case, Lawson v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., was originally filed (also in 2000) by the District of Columbia and several private plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued a host of industry defendants for negligence and for creating a public nuisance, and also under D.C.’s “Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act,” which attempted to make manufacturers and sellers of most semi-automatic firearms strictly liable, without proof of fault, for all injuries caused with their guns in the District. After two trips to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District’s nuisance and negligence claims were dismissed, but the strict liability claim was allowed to go forward.

As in New York, the manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss based on the PLCAA. Both the trial court and the D.C. Court of Appeals agreed with the industry that the PLCAA prohibited this suit despite D.C.’s strict liability law. While the District itself withdrew at this point, the private plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

In its March 9 orders, the Supreme Court denied both appeals, without issuing any opinion. Since any four justices can agree to hear an appeal, this means that no more than three Justices were willing to take these cases.
The Court’s action strongly suggests that the PLCAA will bar any similar suits in other jurisdictions. This is important because litigation is still pending in City of Gary, Indiana v. Smith & Wesson Corp., a case in which the Indiana Supreme Court had found the PLCAA unconstitutional. Also pending are Charlot v. Bushmaster, a case in federal court in the District of Columbia that has been stayed pending the outcome of the Lawson case, and Ileto v. Glock, Inc., which was argued before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in August, 2008. All of these cases are likely to result in further appeals, which could reach the Supreme Court.

The cases illustrate the importance of our political and legislative efforts. If not for our seven years of work in close partnership with the industry to pass the PLCAA, and our involvement in political campaigns that put Second Amendment supporters in control of Congress and the White House, all of these cases might now have gone to trial, with potentially disastrous results. Even one major verdict against the industry could threaten the continued availability of firearms and, therefore, the vitality of the Second Amendment.

[yellowfin]

Let us know when they get rid of Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

The manufacturers appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Judge Weinstein. First, the panel agreed with the manufacturers that the PLCAA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the First and Tenth Amendments. Second, the panel reasoned that the exception for statutes “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms was meant to include gun control laws, not general statutes that apply to all kinds of businesses. (The fact that Sen. Larry Craig and other sponsors of the PLCAA specifically said they intended to cut off the New York suit was an important factor in the industry’s favor.) The city appealed to the Supreme Court.[/I]


Showing that the Commerce Clause isn't necessarily our enemy. In fact, I think that the Commerce Clause could be the tool to overturn the more outrageous aspects of PRK law.

The Raisuli

[Dark&Good]

Cool

[hoffmang]

Let us know when they get rid of Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller.

Miller is done thanks to Heller. The rest are coming from a Nordyke near you.

-Gene

[rabagley]

If Miller is done, then we should have 2A protection of private SBS ownership, right? In Miller, if I remember right, the court accepted the argument that there was no military use of a short-barreled shotgun, and therefore no reason for Miller to have one either.

To my mind, a short-barreled shotgun is truly the ideal home-defense weapon as well as a fantastic (if specialized) infantry weapon, and yet Miller specifically mentioned them as being illegitimate for 2A protection. A strange mixup if there ever was one.

[sfpcservice]

Miller is done thanks to Heller. The rest are coming from a Nordyke near you.

-Gene


When's that happening? :confused::43:

[pullnshoot25]

Miller is done thanks to Heller. The rest are coming from a Nordyke near you.

-Gene

Right on! When does the LHTI? (Law Hit The Incinerator)

[N6ATF]

Two weeks!

[hoffmang]

Miller had no findings, no defendant (he was dead and his lawyer didn't show) and no finality. The ruling and dicta in Heller moot it. For right now the law of the land is that you have a fundamental right to keep and bear the weapons that are commonly possessed by civilians.

That last part may or may not be extended, but Miller is going to be ignored by the courts from here on out.

-Gene

[yellowfin]

Miller had no findings, no defendant (he was dead and his lawyer didn't show) and no finality. Yet it was taken as words direct from the mouth of God by judges everywhere for 70 years. They hung a very heavy pot on a very, very small nail.

[falawful]

As I recall Miller stated that we all have an individual right to militia weapons.

The finding in Miller held that a shotgun under 18" barrel length was not a militia weapon. I recall reading something in error about this finding regarding existence of sawed off trench shotguns in WW1.

I would think Heller to be congruent with Miller regarding individual rights.

[hoffmang]

Yet it was taken as words direct from the mouth of God by judges everywhere for 70 years. They hung a very heavy pot on a very, very small nail.

No. It was a convenient and intentional misreading by those who didn't like the law.

-Gene

[Meplat]

It seems to me that Miller would actually be in our favor because the Gvt. argued that a short barreled shotgun had no 'malitia' (military) usefulness. This was argued without opposition. I would think that that would be easy to refute given adequate counsel. More importantly I would think that Miller ought to establish that the second amendment applies to arms of military usefulness. Can you say black rifles? :43:




Let us know when they get rid of Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller.

[Meplat]

Short barreled shotguns are not in common use only because of the GWA & Miller. For 200 years before the GWA, SB shotguns were the innkeepers friend and the home defense weapon of choice for many Americans. I personally believe that they are the safest, most responsible, home defense weapon even today.

Will we ever be able to mitigate Heller's "common use" language in regards what was outlawed before Heller. SB shotguns would be in common use if not for Miller and the GWA.

Miller had no findings, no defendant (he was dead and his lawyer didn't show) and no finality. The ruling and dicta in Heller moot it. For right now the law of the land is that you have a fundamental right to keep and bear the weapons that are commonly possessed by civilians.

That last part may or may not be extended, but Miller is going to be ignored by the courts from here on out.

-Gene

[nicki]

I'm curious as to wheter or not there was a racial element in restricting short rifles and shotguns.

Here is my thinking, the run of CCW laws from the late 1800's thru the 1920's conviently deprieved blacks of CCW permits.

I also have a feeling that in many areas of the country, it was difficult for blacks to legally buy handguns.

Rifles and shotguns could be bought, it appears that rifles and shotgun ownership didn't become a issue until the 1960's.

It could be that a attack on the ban on SBR's may be open for challenge on both 2nd and 14th amendment grounds.

Nicki

[Mulay El Raisuli]

It could be that a attack on the ban on SBR's may be open for challenge on both 2nd and 14th amendment grounds.

Nicki


Maybe. There are many examples of SBRs in military use. Mostly as sub-machineguns, but also as semi-auto versions of such. One example I can think of is the Brits issued semi-auto versions of STEN guns (or, perhaps the updated STEN, the Sterling) to farmers in Kenya as protection against the Mau-Mau. This would also rate as a "militia" use of an SBR. And of course, Israeli civilians carry auto & semi-auto versions of the UZI every day.

Given the fact that civilians have & do carry SBRs, I'm thinking that you're right. Maybe the challenge shouldn't be mounted now, but soon?

The Raisuli

[Meplat]

(or, perhaps the updated STEN, the Sterling)

The Raisuli

The STEN is a downgraded Sterling. The Sterling came first.

;)

[Bugei]

If Miller is done, then we should have 2A protection of private SBS ownership, right? In Miller, if I remember right, the court accepted the argument that there was no military use of a short-barreled shotgun, and therefore no reason for Miller to have one either.

To my mind, a short-barreled shotgun is truly the ideal home-defense weapon as well as a fantastic (if specialized) infantry weapon, and yet Miller specifically mentioned them as being illegitimate for 2A protection. A strange mixup if there ever was one.

SBS aside (although I agree with you), I think it's a horrible shame that Heller will be used to continue to enforce Miller. I know it was outside the scope of the case before the court to comment on NFA weapons and whether or not the NFA violates the Second Amendment....but for the purposes of the actual uses of the Second Amendment, selective fire carbines are probably the best choice. Heller didn't say so, though. Tsk.

[hoffmang]

Heller didn't say so, though. Tsk.

And as you said, those issues were not properly before the court because they shouldn't be. Getting the Second Amendment back was more important as a first step than getting everything and a bag of chips on the first trip to SCOTUS.

-Gene

[7x57]

but for the purposes of the actual uses of the Second Amendment, selective fire carbines are probably the best choice. Heller didn't say so, though. Tsk.

So far as I can tell, asking for everything at once has failed every time, and yet it exerts a mesmerizing influence on gunnies. There are gun-rights organizations that I suspect only exist in order to try to push this failing strategy. (Must..not...name...names...must...not...)

Heller seems to have succeeded precisely because it put one and only one issue before the court. So let's see:

Track record for incrementalism: win
Track record for one-big-pot lawsuits: FAIL

So (and this is not directed at you) why is there so much pressure to return to FAIL?

7x57

[CA_Libertarian]

Showing that the Commerce Clause isn't necessarily our enemy. In fact, I think that the Commerce Clause could be the tool to overturn the more outrageous aspects of PRK law.

The Raisuli

This is one of the few things the commerce clause was intended to do: protect interstate commerce from state law bias and to protect free trade.

Take away the fact that these are 'gun' suits. If CA passed a law saying Wisconsin cheese was illegal, the Commerce Clause should apply.

The problem is the Commerce Clause is widely abused by the federal government as a way to control the states on issues that it has no authority to control.

[The Wingnut]

What? :fud: No. The Sten was standardized in 1940, the Sterling in 1953. Where are you getting this information?

The STEN is a downgraded Sterling. The Sterling came first.

[BillCA]

This is one of the few things the commerce clause was intended to do: protect interstate commerce from state law bias and to protect free trade.

Take away the fact that these are 'gun' suits. If CA passed a law saying Wisconsin cheese was illegal, the Commerce Clause should apply.

The problem is the Commerce Clause is widely abused by the federal government as a way to control the states on issues that it has no authority to control.

While I agree in principle, there is a long history of state statutes trumping the commerce clause. In the 1950's, when the first Detroit cars came out with quad headlights, California had not certified them for use, even though they had D.O.T. and S.A.E. numbers. For months there were some very tee'd off new car owners driving around with the sealed high-beam units removed (and a gaping hole there).

[rabagley]

What? :fud: No. The Sten was standardized in 1940, the Sterling in 1953. Where are you getting this information?

FUD? Fear? Uncertainty? Doubt?

He was simply incorrect. No FUD involved.

[yellowfin]

So far as I can tell, asking for everything at once has failed every time, and yet it exerts a mesmerizing influence on gunnies. There are gun-rights organizations that I suspect only exist in order to try to push this failing strategy. (Must..not...name...names...must...not...)

Heller seems to have succeeded precisely because it put one and only one issue before the court. So let's see:

Track record for incrementalism: win
Track record for one-big-pot lawsuits: FAIL

So (and this is not directed at you) why is there so much pressure to return to FAIL?

7x57

Because we're under attack at the moment. When you have a grizzly bear charging at you, do you prefer to have to assemble your rifle and handload your ammo from components?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

This is one of the few things the commerce clause was intended to do: protect interstate commerce from state law bias and to protect free trade.

Take away the fact that these are 'gun' suits. If CA passed a law saying Wisconsin cheese was illegal, the Commerce Clause should apply.

The problem is the Commerce Clause is widely abused by the federal government as a way to control the states on issues that it has no authority to control.


But that's exactly why we should use the CC to attack PRK regulations. The 2a is more important than cheese. Being attacked by the bias of the PRK. This has lead to an interference in the free trade of guns. If cheese deserves the protection of the CC, don't guns deserve the same protection? If it's illegal for a state to impose biased regulations that hinder the buying of cheddar, should it remain proper for a state to impose biased regulations that hinder the buying of guns? The other 49 states are quite happy to NOT have the "safety standards" of the PRK. Example, coating a gun pink doesn't require jumping through hoops (re-certifying) in any state but this one. A pink gun is functionally identical to a black one & the other states don't seem to have a problem recognizing this reality.

It isn't just that gun control doesn't do any good, this sort of thing also hinders free trade is a legal product. We didn't allow this in regards headlights (or cheese), why are we allowing it in regards guns? Why not attack the restrictions imposed by the PRK with the Commerce Clause AS WELL AS using the 2A?

Yes, there is a bit of overreach with the Commerce Clause, but surely using it to defend the FEDERAL Constitution against the bias of a single state can only be regarded as proper.

The Raisuli

[bdsmchs]

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was one of several cases against the industry brought before Judge Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York. The suit claimed, among other things, that firearms industry business practices created a public nuisance in the city. In October 2005, the day after enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), defendants moved to dismiss the suit based on the PLCAA. Though Judge Weinstein agreed with the manufacturers that the law was constitutional, he denied the motion to dismiss, claiming that the alleged “nuisance” was a criminal nuisance that would make the case fall under the PLCAA’s exception for suits based on violations of statutes “applicable to” the sale of firearms.

The manufacturers appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Judge Weinstein. First, the panel agreed with the manufacturers that the PLCAA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the First and Tenth Amendments. Second, the panel reasoned that the exception for statutes “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms was meant to include gun control laws, not general statutes that apply to all kinds of businesses. (The fact that Sen. Larry Craig and other sponsors of the PLCAA specifically said they intended to cut off the New York suit was an important factor in the industry’s favor.) The city appealed to the Supreme Court.

The second case, Lawson v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., was originally filed (also in 2000) by the District of Columbia and several private plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued a host of industry defendants for negligence and for creating a public nuisance, and also under D.C.’s “Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act,” which attempted to make manufacturers and sellers of most semi-automatic firearms strictly liable, without proof of fault, for all injuries caused with their guns in the District. After two trips to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District’s nuisance and negligence claims were dismissed, but the strict liability claim was allowed to go forward.


I find this hilarious. Two cities, one in which the private ownership of handguns is all but completely banned, and the other where private ownership of handguns IS (at that time) completely banned, are suing the manufacturers of firearms that you (in theory) can't even get in those cities!

These two lawsuits should be part of the golden proof that gun control does NOT work.