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

Published: Oct 3, 2005


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.

AP-ES-10-03-05 1143EDT



Have A Nice Day!

So the District of Columbia should be allowed to unilaterally enact a nationwide ban on Glocks and Berettas, because their own near-absolute prohibition on functioning firearms (and even nonfunctional handguns) is such a dismal failure? Not a single Glock or Beretta 92 has EVER been sold in the District of Columbia to any civilian. Ever.

Gee, I wonder what NARAL would say if Alabama decided to sue manufacturers of contraceptives or abortion-related medical equipment out of business...same legal model...

I don't think the smiley face and the "Have a nice day" were needed.

Our friend Acebass likes to stir the pot occasionally. The suit is frivolous, and there is a good chance the new law will affect it. The Commerce clause is a two-edged sword...be careful what you wish for.

Stephen, this whole thing is dense to me- I don't understand why it is so imperative that laws like DC's be contested. I guess you could say at this moment that I am a clean slate; I have no real opinion. You're a second amendment guy and I respect your opinion, but I also respect Ace's. Explain the issues to me like I am a 10 year old. If Ace wants to respond, I think all of us on this forum might learn a lot.

:hexe: Ace, be nice...

DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In my opinion...that is their choice. Unfortunately, they also have a high violent crime rate. You can equate this to criminals knowing the city is easy pickings because of the law, or the fact that gun laws around DC are less strict. Because of this, guns from the outside will get into town and be use for crime. Of course this happens in any city.
The suit in essence is saying that the gun manufactures are responsible for the crime in DC because of sales outside of DC. They are using the commerce clause standard rather than a product liability standard.
It still comes to this comparison. If your wife is killed by a drunk driver driving a Chevrolet...Could you sue the manufacture or dealer? Is this a product issue, or a criminal conduct issue? More to the point...would you sue Glock if an intruder killed your wife with a Glock, or would you believe that the intruder was totally at fault? I would of course question as to how he came in possession of the gun.
I believe that his is just a way for the anti-gun groups to use the courts to flank the law. I'm hoping that benEzra will weigh in here, as he is a bit more eloquent and knowledgeable on this subject.

If the suit is successful, methinks it opens the door to other suits against manufacturers on anything and everything! Someone brought up the automobile anology, but even more perilous are other potential targets.

If a child hears a news report about somethin' on TV or reads 'bout somethin' in a newspaper that makes 'im so angry he burns down his school should the TV station/network or newspaper be held liable? If a child downloads a violent game and then goes out and beats up the little girl next door should his internet service provider and/or computer maker be held liable? If an underage kid breaks into his parent's booze locker, steals a bottle of whiskey, gets drunk and steals a car that he runs over a bunch of kids with should the distillery be held liable?

IMHO if this lawsuit were ever to be successful it opens the door to all the rest of the examples I've cited and more, eh? Do you see the problem now?

Again, I have absolutely no opinion on this matter so for me this is part of a learning curve. Thanks for humoring me.

Is this not more like the cigarette suits? I mean, other than target practice, handguns have no purpose other than to kill people when used as directed. Unlike cigarettes, however, guns can be made safe. My understanding now is that gun manufactureres are recalcitrant in doing more to make them safe. Is that a fact?

As far as automobiles: as soon as you move from one jurisdiction to another, you are governed by the laws of that jurisdiction. California has seatbelt laws for children under the age of six, so if you're from Nevada and your child is hurt or killed in California because you didn't have him fastened in, then you go to jail. Additionally, remember that there are now national standards for seatbelts, airbags, and other safety devices for cars; if they fail, the manufacturer can (and probably will) be sued. One of the reasons they were enacted is because of the absolute liability suits brought upon automobile manufacturers based upon the laws of the individual states and their jurisdictions. Or is that not the issue? Are guns not subject to absolute liability? Am I missing something here?

Back to an automobile anaolgy.

Should an automobile manufaturer be held accountable because a consumer killed a person while driving while intoxicated/impared/under the influence etc.

This could be prevented if we installed breath alizers on the ingnion of every car. This would not add that much to the price and could also be done retroactively.

I would really like to hear from Ace on this, since IMHO this is not much different from the gun issue.

You should know my answer. It seems obvious that a car wasn't manufactured to kill. A gun is. Apples and Oranges.

Matter of opinion. Me and some here have history!

Ace, under absolute liability, that is irrelevant.

OK, so NV doesn't require a breathalyser test to start the car. If CA required breathalyzer tests and you were driviing in CA and hurt someone because you were able to start your car, you can bet that the civil suit against the driver would include the manufacturer- and that's what this discussion is about: civil actions.

I'm not an attorney but I would guess the manufacturer's defense would be that the car where purchased was not required to have the device so should not be held liable. Maybe they might prevail, maybe not. Under the theory of absolute liability, they probably wouldn't since the plaintiff's lawyer would argue that taking a car from one state to any other should have been foreseen by the manufacturer.

My guess is that gun manufacturer's see this scenario as their Dunkirk.

Edit: and I think the term might be 'strict liability'- I'm not sure.

Intent of manufacture is very relevant where liability is concerned.
When you make a gun for killing and it is used to kill a person then you should be held liable for that gun being used to kill a human because there are laws against killing humans.

Guns where made to be used in killing, that is important. When something is manufactured for the sole purpose of killing it should be regulated like the Norquist want to do government, so you can keep all the guns in one bath tub.

A car is manufactured for transportation purposes only, if it is used as a weapon the only person liable is the one who changed it's intended purpose.

In a rational world you would be correct, but lawyers and the law don't live in a rational world.

Actually methinks a gun is manufactured as a means to safely (for the operator) propel a projectile. At the same time the automobile was manufactured as a means to safely transport the operator. If the operator of either operates their object unsafely or illegally is it the fault of the manufacturer?

Sure looks like comparin' apples to apples to me, eh? IMHO Ace's argument falls flat when looking at what each object was actually intended to do and not what the operator does with it.

The guns that are being used are designed and built for the purpose of defensive use by their owners. Even those purchased by police are designed for that purpose. So...criminals are using a gun produced by Glock in an offensive way and not for their original intent. It's true that a car wasn't designed to kill, but can do just that if used correctly. A swimming pool is designed for recreational enjoyment, but how many children die in them each year? Is this a criminal design flaw by the manufacture?

Remind me not to send you out to get Orange juice.

Face it Fr...I mean Steven, Guns were made to KILL....only purpose, you can say throw projectile, hurl lead object, fire lead weight however you want to milk toast around it, in the end they were made to kill, anything mean't to kill should be regulated to death, sorry, it's how I feel and I won't sacrifice my ideals and say okay just to win votes.
The courts ruled and I think their ruling was reasonable. For me, end of story.

Awwww, come on! Methinks you can do better'n that, eh?What 'bout stuff deadlier than guns? Should we treat blunt objects, boats, automobiles, swimmin' pools, medical practioners and everything else that cause more deaths annually in this country than guns the same way?

Thanks fly but I must decline. I don't dance with sailors

Discussion with you on any gun issue is fruitless, Ace. You don't have an open mind in this regard. I would much rather spend my time talking to those that have a genuine interest in my views, and rationally discuss theirs. I'm not a strict gun ideologue but do have strong opinions on the subject.

A little ration of reason here. It's hard to transport a swimming pool from one jurisdiction to another and, while you might use it to fill a couple of thousand water balloons, I've never heard of death by water balloon.

My question, Stephen, is this. Look at how heavily regulated cars are, and their purpose has nothing to do with the fact that they kill thousands each year. If a car is regulated to prevent deaths and disabilities, why not guns?

Aren't they already? Also methinks there's no right outlined in the Constitution to keep and bear cars, eh?

Aren't they already? Also methinks there's no right outlined in the Constitution to keep and bear cars, eh?

If tracking guns is your concern I would suggest that all new and used guns sold by a dealer are. Recordkeeping is the number one requirement for keeping their license. What kind of regulation are you suggesting? I'm always open to any common sense idea that realistically will help in reducing crime.

Would you please provide any article where a gun KILLED.

Furhter, with this reasoning, should we hold knife manufacures liable when a person uses a knife to kill? Would this be more like oranges and oranges?

Winston, D.C. is suing on the grounds that no firearm holding over 12 rounds (like my wife's Glock) should EVER be allowed to be sold to any civilian, ANYWHERE in the United States. So they passed a laws saying that if any firearm holding over 12 rounds was ever smuggled into D.C. and used in a crime, the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for all damages and punitive damages, because they never should have sold an over-12-round handgun to some peon civilian like my wife.

(FWIW, no Glock or Beretta over-12-round handgun has EVER been lawfully sold to any civilian in the District, to my knowledge.)

This is EXACTLY the same as if the state of Alabama (which leans anti-abortion) were to pass a law saying that if any woman is harmed through a doctor's negligence during an abortion in Alabama, the MANUFACTURER of the suction curette or whatever used during the procedure shall be held strictly liable for damages and punitive damages. The intent being to drive manufacturers of abortion-related medical equipment out of the market, thereby effectively banning abortion in all 50 states. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, that's NOT how the system is supposed to work.

BTW, the Supreme Court is probably not hearing this case simply because the Protection in Lawful Commerce act (or whatever it's called) is going to shut down this suit as soon as it becomes law.

Thanks ben...You've stated this much better than I.

So in otherwords your saying that even though the possessor of this firearm used it incorrectly he should not be liable?? If someone goes and gets drunk and slams their car into a school bus and kills inocent children, we should sue Jack Daniels and Ford?? Why not hold the idividual responsible? This lawsuit is the same kind of crap they pulled with McDonalds, they are going where the money is. The criminal doesn't have alot of money so we wont sue him, we will sue the gun maker who had no way to prevent this. Why are we as a society afraid to hold each individual accountable for their actions??

The intended purpose for defensive-style handguns is not murder, it is lawful self-defense (the same reason police agencies buy them). Which is not only legal, for both police and non-LEO civilians, but explicitly protected by law.

I realize that this is a Liberal based forum noon, but the answer should be damned obvious. Where the hell does DC get off dictating policy to the rest of the country? They have a cesspool of crime and corruption, and blame everyone else for it.

True, I find it hard to open my mind to killing. It's just not in my nature. I think your time would be better spent discussing other subject.

When you find a way to prevent killing let me know.

Unlike others, I won't quit trying

The only way to prevent killing is to eliminate life.

people do say the darndest things

I would argue that the way to prevent killing is to deal with the KILLERS, rather than instituting punitive measures against those who have never and will never commit a murder, e.g. my wife and I and the other gun owners on this forum. Sheesh, my wife and I have never even had a speeding ticket...

The premise of the gun prohibitionists is that if guns are taken away from people like my wife and I, then the killers will surrender theirs as well and become non-killers, which is a dubious proposition.

Around 80 million people of voting age own firearms lawfully and responsibly. And an inordinately high percentage of us are well-educated, informed, and VOTE.

No politician who wants to rummage around in our family's gun safe and tell us what he/she will deign to "allow" us peons to continue to own, and which ones he/she will take from us under color of law, will ever get our vote. There is common ground on violence prevention to be had, but taking our guns is NOT it.

I've said this many times Ace, but I will say it again!...The problem is not guns and never was...It is the social ills of this country. Until and only until, we get a handle on this, we will have violence perpetrated. By restricting gun ownership to the law abiding citizens of this country, you hand the criminal a free pass to do his worst. Communities that have strict gun control have found that it hasn't done any good in curbing crime, yet they continue to call for more control.
As benEzra has stated!...Any candidate that calls for unreasonable gun control will not get my vote, but only my disdain. You can't voice a passion for the Constitution and cherry-pick it.

But wouldn't it be nice to not have to deal with guns at all. I'd rather work to that ends, as impossible as it may sound if you keep that as a goal then someday, maybe someday!
Try going in that direction and I'm all ears.

I think it would be great if the STATE had a STATE supported religion, That the STATE could resrict what people could say, that the STATE controlled everything.

But our founding fathers had different thoughts. So what other rights would you like to eliminate in your quest for the Bill of Rights according to Ace?

Guys, the reasons Acebass will not understand what you are saying are very simple. He argues from emotion, you argue from logic. Also, the argument you are having is really a couple of arguments.

Is killing the sole reason for guns' existence? Ace says yes, others say no. I say, it is but one of the possible uses. Yes, guns are designed for killing, but they are also designed for other things. In effect, everyone is only partially right.

The real argument is whether killing is always a bad thing. I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Ace would say yes to that one. Folks like him believe there is no valid reason to take a life, even if they don't always say so.

I believe that is not so. In my opinion there is a distinct difference between a killing and a murder. Murder is killing without a valid reason. What is a valid reason? Being a credible immediate threat to me and those in my care. For that, two things must be in place - the intent and the ability to harm. (This also works for countries, and the test was failed in case of Iraq, but I digress.) How can we judge intent? Well, to borrow a movie line, if someone walks into my house with a knife and an erection, I think it's safe to say he's not selling girl scout cookies. There are times when hostility is plainly obvious and there is no doubt. Those are the only situations where deadly force is warranted. I believe I have the abiltiy to make this judgement. Anyone that believes otherwise is welcome to explain.

I have no problem with pacifists so long as their own lives are the only ones they are willing to lay down for their beliefs. When they decide to disarm me they are playing with my life and the lives of my children that are dependent on me being alive and able to work to be fed, clothed and housed. I am not willing to sacrifice them to someone else's utopian dreams.

Wouldn't it be nice to not deal with any of this? Sure. Make the world safe for me and I will lay down my defensive arms. Until then, hands off.

This is probably where I will be accused of being paranoid. I am not. Paranoia is baseless fear, my fear has a base. Bad things have happened to me, and I have found myself in situations where a gun would have been useful. I see no guarantees that worse ones will not happen.

Only if violent criminals could be eliminated first. Criminals don't have to have guns in order to prey upon the innocent; look at the sky-high murder rate in pre-firearms London, where the weapons of choice were the dagger and the garrotte (despite greater police powers of search, arrest, and er, interrogation than today), and when police had to wear body armor to protect them from strangulation tools. Or check out the genocide in Rwanda, carried out with machetes. And while you're at it, find a way to keep unarmed criminals from working in groups or from using their fists and feet as weapons, since three to six times as many homicides are committed with fists and feet as with "assault weapons."

Then get rid of the weapons of the State, including police and military, everywhere. And find some way to ensure that the government will never become abusive, not even in the next ten thousand years.

After that, we'll talk.

Until then, we can talk about ways to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.

Now this really confuses me Ace.

Are you saying that if you needed to you could defend yourself without the use of a gun? And how would you do that?

If so, great. But what about the people who cannot?

Expand your horizon friend, you to can protect yourself without the use of a fire arm. You just have to want to!

And if in that protecting yourself the person dies, is there a problem with that?

And what about the people that cannot protect themselve with their hands and feet?

You just keep grabbing at straws don't you.

The Second sez that a militia can keep and bear arms. That's not the issue, though, and it would be a distraction to argue about it.

Yes, we can keep and bear arms; there is nothing that sez the various jurisdictions cannot regulate the safety of those weapons. We have a Commerce Clause in the Constitution, but each state regulates the safety of the trucks and trains used in commerce.

No, tracking is not the issue, it's the safety. How come anyone can fire a gun if all they need to do is learn how to click back the safety?

Look, I have a table saw. That table saw has a guard over the blade and a keyed power switch. Both are mandated by some regulation or another. For people I allow to use it, they have some protection from the blade- just like the safety. But if I want to prevent everyone else from using it, I can remove the key. Why can't a gun have a device like that key? What would be so evil about having such a requirement?