SUPREME COURT DENIES APPEALS
See the original article
From: NRA-ILA
On Monday, March 9, 2009, 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.
MORE ...
From: NRA-ILAOn Monday, March 9, 2009, 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.
MORE ...