Second Amendment Coming On Strong...

[Annie]

Links at site

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_16-2005_10_22.shtml#1129830865

[David Kopel, October 20, 2005 at 1:54pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Congress Bans Abusive Anti-Gun Lawsuits:

At approximately noon, eastern time, the House of Representatives voted to pass S. 397, 283-144. The bill, known as the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," has been endorsed by the White House, and now goes to the President for his signature.

The bill is the culmination a decade of tort reform work, aimed at addressing the problem of abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The bill is an excellent exercise of the congressional power over interstate commerce, for precisely the purpose for which Congress was originally granted that power: the billis necessary and proper to stop local governments from interfering with interstate commerce, including by attempting to use a verdict in a single state court to impose national firearms controls which have been rejected by Congress and by all state governments.

S. 397 is also a proper exercise of Congressional power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to prevent local governments, including local courts, from infringing the Second Amendment rights (and the parallel state constitutional rights in 44 states) which are guaranteed to all law-abiding Americans.

In addition, the bill is also a necessary and proper exercise of the Congressional war power, because the civilian firearms industry is now, and always has been, essential to the production of firearms for the military. Without a robust civilian firearms industry, manufacturers who had to produce only for a military or police market would have to charge much higher prices, and would innovate far less. Almost every gun ever used by the U.S. military was originally developed for the civilian market. Accordingly, the Department of Defense stated that is "strongly supports" S. 397 because the bill "would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform."

Thirty-four states had already enacted their own laws to prohibit such suits, but Congressional action was necessary to ensure that a single court in one of the hold-out states did not attempt to destroy the U.S. firearms industry, or to impose the will of a single judge as a national system of firearms restrictions.

The Brady Center, the instigator of the abusive suits, has already expressed its intention to fight the new federal law in court. Significantly, no court anywhere in the United States has ever ruled in favor of similar challenges to the state statutes restricting abusive lawsuits against Second Amendment rights.

The Senate added two unrelated items to S. 397, both of which have caused concern among some Second Amendment activists:

First, the bill increases the already severe mandatory minimum sentences for use of armor-piercing ammunition in a violent or drug trafficking crime. Mandatory minimums are generally a bad idea, but since actual armor-piercing ammunition, as defined by federal law, is very rare, the practical effect of the new sentences will be very small.

Second, the bill requires all licensed firearms dealers to include a locking mechanism with each handgun they sale. Almost every American manufacturer already includes a lock (either an internal lock or, more commonly, a cable lock or trigger lock), with every new gun.

Accordingly, the main effect of S. 397's lock provision will be to force sellers of used handguns to raise their price by several dollars to provide customers an item that the customer may not need. (For example, the customer may already own a gun safe, or may plan to keep the handgun always ready for self-defense, so that it should not be locked up.)

The bill also provides civil immunity for persons who use locking devices. There have been a few state court cases in which guns were effectively treated as ultra-hazardous products, and gun owners whose guns were stolen and used in a crime were found civilly liable, even though their guns had been stored in a safe.

Both of the extra provisions have slippery slope risks: Senator Kennedy and a significant number of Senators favor expanding the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition so as to include the vast majority of conventional rifle ammunition. And several states have enacted dangerous laws which require handguns to be locked up, and thus inaccessible for emergency self-defense.

However, the future dangers of slippery slopes are far outweighed by the immediate threat posed by abusive lawsuits. On the whole, S. 397 is an immense victory for constitutional rights.

For background on the abusive lawsuit issue, you may wish to read some of the ten articles I've written on the subject, including the 1995 Seton Hall Legislative Journal article which argued that courts should protect the Second Amendment from abusive lawsuits, just as they protected the First Amendment from abusive lawsuits in New York Times v. Sullivan. But even better than judicially-created protection is legislatively-created protection. Today's bi-partisan vote is a tremendous victory for the constitutional rights of citizens, and is the result of Congress exercising its powers for precisely the pro-freedom reasons for which those powers were granted to Congress by the American people.
97 Comments

 

[bush lover]

We can shut down the shyster ambulance-chasers by exempting ALL industries AND government from abusive lawsuits, which cost us as consumers and taxpapers billions and billions. As for firearms, we now have to start outlawing all of the restrictions on our firearms that the liberals have pushed through. The constitution mentions "arms," without specification. So that means that if I want to buy and use a machine gun, I should be allowed to. Period. It will be a long fight to roll back all of the laws against carrying and the like, but with the NRA's and God's help, we'll do it!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

...by exempting ALL industries AND government from abusive lawsuits...

What does this even mean? Do you even think about what you post, or just regurgitate it from the slogan-heavy talking points you read? How are you going to exempt something from an "abusive" lawsuit. Do you mean ALL lawsuits?

 

[bush lover]

"What does this even mean? Do you even think about what you post, or just regurgitate it from the slogan-heavy talking points you read? How are you going to exempt something from an "abusive" lawsuit. Do you mean ALL lawsuits?"


If you are a trial lawyer, sir, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

 

[theim]

What does this even mean? Do you even think about what you post, or just regurgitate it from the slogan-heavy talking points you read? How are you going to exempt something from an "abusive" lawsuit. Do you mean ALL lawsuits?

Don't pay attention to this troll. He's just some DU idiot who like to come and post garbage like that in the hopes that he can go back to his cesspool and say "See! They really do hate everybody!!!!!!!!"

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"What does this even mean? Do you even think about what you post, or just regurgitate it from the slogan-heavy talking points you read? How are you going to exempt something from an "abusive" lawsuit. Do you mean ALL lawsuits?"


If you are a trial lawyer, sir, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I'm not, sir, and you didn't hurt my feelings. You've been taking lessons from Arch, I see. Try defending what you post instead of distracting away from it with cute but useless ripostes.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Don't pay attention to this troll. He's just some DU idiot who like to come and post garbage like that in the hopes that he can go back to his cesspool and say "See! They really do hate everybody!!!!!!!!"

Who's the troll, me? or him?

 

[no1tovote4]

Who's the troll, me? or him?

bush lover is a DU troll who comes on every once in a while to post stuff like this in the hopes he'll get a bunch of right-wingers to post in agreement so he can take it back to DU and say, "See! What a bunch of haters!"

 

[The ClayTaurus]

bush lover is a DU troll who comes on every once in a while to post stuff like this in the hopes he'll get a bunch of right-wingers to post in agreement so he can take it back to DU and say, "See! What a bunch of haters!"

DU? Democratic Underground? I'm not hip enough to the forum scene, apparently...

 

[no1tovote4]

DU? Democratic Underground? I'm not hip enough to the forum scene, apparently...

Yup. DU is Democratic Underground. I once registered there, I made this post, "I am a Libertarian, would I be welcome here?" They banned me.

 

[theim]

DU? Democratic Underground? I'm not hip enough to the forum scene, apparently...

You aren't missing anything. Just a bunch of threads titled

Chimpy McBushiter Ate My Balls
KKKarl Rove caused Hurricane Katrina
Giant Flying Monkeys From Outer Space Installed The Chimp in the White House.
Republicans Sacrifice Newborn Babies to Baal

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You aren't missing anything. Just a bunch of threads titled

Chimpy McBushiter Ate My Balls
KKKarl Rove caused Hurricane Katrina
Giant Flying Monkeys From Outer Space Installed The Chimp in the White House.
Republicans Sacrifice Newborn Babies to Baal

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[bush lover]

"I'm not, sir, and you didn't hurt my feelings. You've been taking lessons from Arch, I see. Try defending what you post instead of distracting away from it with cute but useless ripostes."

My apologies. If you are a liberal, sir, and I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. And I feel sorry for you. If that makes me a troll so be it. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me (in defending my Constitutional rights). Thank you.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"I'm not, sir, and you didn't hurt my feelings. You've been taking lessons from Arch, I see. Try defending what you post instead of distracting away from it with cute but useless ripostes."

My apologies. If you are a liberal, sir, and I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. And I feel sorry for you. If that makes me a troll so be it. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me (in defending my Constitutional rights). Thank you.

2 posts now where you avoid backing up your words. If you make it to 5, I'll let you be my first honorary ding!

 

[Hobbit]

You aren't missing anything. Just a bunch of threads titled

Chimpy McBushiter Ate My Balls
KKKarl Rove caused Hurricane Katrina
Giant Flying Monkeys From Outer Space Installed The Chimp in the White House.
Republicans Sacrifice Newborn Babies to Baal

You forgot this one:

BUSHITLER and Faux Nooz will put liberals in concentration camps

That's a quote, I swear...and most of the people who posted agreed with it.

My first and last post stated that maybe Bush hit Iraq because it was a soft target and would be an example to warn others not to cross him. I thought it seemed mean enough. Kind of like, "Well, I don't think that's why he did it, but he's still a mean person." I got banned.

I almost forgot. This legislation is a bad idea, since we have to have these lawsuits so gun manufacturers will stop making guns that kill people. I mean, my granddad once gave me a shotgun and it broke out of the closet in the middle of the night and tried to slit my throat. Now that's just irresponsible, and they should at least provide me with a jail cell to hold the things in while I'm asleep.