If someone tried to sue Ford because a drunk driver got into an accident, the case would go nowhere. If someone tried to sue Cooper Hand Tools because a nutjob took a hatchet to a rival, no lawyer would touch the case. If someone sued Krylon because a vandal ruined the paint job on their car, the judge would immediately toss the case.
Trying to hold a manufacture responsible for the criminal misuse of their product is unacceptable to most people. So why is it so different when a criminal misuses a firearm to commit a crime?
Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court finally put a stop to pending lawsuits brought by New York City and Washington, D.C. against Beretta USA, attempting to hold the manufacturer responsible for criminal acts. These suits were first brought against Beretta in 2000, and took 9 years and millions of dollars to finally meet the end they should have met right out of the gate.
“Big city mayors conceived these lawsuits to try and litigate American gun manufacturers – who President Roosevelt referred to as “the arsenal of democracy” – out of business,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “NRA has always believed the courts would agree with Congress that the PLCAA rightfully stops these reckless and politically motivated lawsuits.”
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law in 2005, was used as part of the defense and was upheld as constitutional. This law isn't needed in any other industry, but became necessary to stop these backdoor attempts by the anti-gun forces to bankrupt the firearms industry and drive them out of business. Those two cities charged that Beretta and other manufacturers did nothing to stop firearms sales at gun shows, which they claim is a major way in which criminals get guns. Keeping with one of our original examples, this would be akin to suing Ford because they didn't stop car dealerships from selling cars at auto shows when those cars could be used for drunk driving.
The absurdity of the suits mattered little to those cities, who still accomplished their goal of draining resources from the firearms industry. They want to control the guns, and they want to control the people... and they'll stop at nothing to do it. It shouldn't have taken nine years for the lawsuits to be dismissed, and there needs to be penalties for bringing such frivolous suits into the courts in the future in order to dissuade anti-gun city officials from pursuing their agenda at the expense of the American citizens.
I'd like to extend a welcome to our newest Gun Rights Examiner, Gene German! Gene will be writing as the Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner, and his first article, Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law, is a must read.
READERSHIP INTERACTION
Otter: Are the politicians trying to protect us, or just disarm us? None of their excuses for these laws make any sense and they don't justify any of their claims with facts. Do they really think that the American public is going to sit back and do nothing when their Rights are being taken away from them? Then again, if they are stupid enough to come up with these ideas and laws, maybe they are stupid enough to think that they can get away with it.
In their minds, disarmament is the justification and they don't need excuses or facts. And yes, they do think the public is going to do nothing about it. Let's face it, a very large percentage of the public is only concerned about themselves. They're perfectly willing to give up rights they're not "using." This is how the path to disarmament is paved. First, you ban "assault weapons" since you can lie about their functionality and even a lot of gun owners don't own the first batch to be banned. Then, you go after the handguns, figuring that many hunters and long gun shooters will consider their guns to be safe and won't resist too much. Then you go after the semi-automatics, telling people they can keep their pump or bolt-action long guns. Of course, those go next and eventually there is nothing left. Incrementation is the name of the game and the reason why we can't let any more slices of the right to keep and bear arms to be taken away.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Austin: Gun control, pro-choice women, and the Brady Campaign
- Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!
- DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to register handgun because it’s the wrong color
- Denver: Let's get guns on campus....in the right hands
- Los Angeles: Gun Lobby Outvotes D.C, Part II: The Hell of consequences
- Milwaukee: Why are we tiptoeing?
- Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside
- National: Will Alabama shooter bring 'assault weapon' ban to front burner?
- Seattle: Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights, says Rasmussen poll
- St. Louis: Would George Washington want American citizens to acquiesce to oppression?
- Wisconsin: Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law
Comments
Thanks for your article Dan.
Everyone on both sides of the fence need to be aware of what's really going on. To us it seems to be plain common sense, but as they say it's not so common anymore.
Something I often hear from folks in this discussion is that guns are somehow different, that they are "made only to kill people." This is, of course, nonsense.
Guns are designed and made to propel specific small objects a distance with velocity and force. Where those objects go is totally under the control of and the responsibility of the person using the gun.
I then point out that knives can be deadly as well, but they are manufactured for a variety of purposes that all have to do with cutting things. Steak, tomatoes, bread, lots of things. Only the person holding the knife can control what is done with it, for good or ill.
Sadly, the desire to eliminate personal responsibility drives much of our culture and government these days. Any attempt to return responsibility to the individual is resisted with great force.
When we find the answer to that problem, we'll be able to get a better handle on the rest of them, I think.
"It shouldn't have taken nine years for the lawsuits to be dismissed, and there needs to be penalties for bringing such frivolous suits into the courts...."
Don't forget the unethical jurists who aided this attempt at financial and legal system coercion. Jack Weinstein comes to mind, he should most definitely be removed from the bench and disbarred. He knows the law, yet ruled contrary to it at every opportunity. His dishonest, unethical and immoral comportment should not be tolerated on the bench.
Only a stupid brainless idiot thinks that suing gun makers stops crimes its as stupid as some over weight fathead suing McDonalds or Burger King for his being fat
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!