I do remember one of these lawsuits getting thrown out by the judge a while back.
Have any other city suits against gun manufacturers been thrown out of court? Have any judges started imposing sanctions against the would-be plaintiffs for filing “frivolous” lawsuits?
A lawsuit brought by the city of Chicago was dismissed on 2/10/00.
A lawsuit brought by Miami-Dade County, FL was dismissed on 12/10/99.
A lawsuit brought by the city of Bridgeport, CT was dismissed on 12/13/99.
I don’t believe that there were any sanctions or penalties levied in these cases.
However, on October 7, 1999, a lawsuit brought by the city of Cincinnati, Ohio was dismissed with prejudice. I don’t however, know what the specific penalties levied against Cincinnati amounted to.
I got all this from the electronic newsletter distributed by the NRA. You can sign up at www.nraila.org (you’ll have to dig around a bit to find the subscription request)
tracer:
I think it has been established that I’m not too interested in the niceties in the Constitution.
But I do believe that if the people of this country were to move towards more gun regulation, even by overturning the 2nd Amendment, the response from the radical fringe of the gun lobby would be similar to that of the slaveholders in the 19th century.
Do you realize how many sub-sets you have going in there?
Let me tell you that there would be quite a bit more pissed off people than you think.
There are 80 million gun owners on America, we are not talking about some minor little group.
Those pesky “niceties” of the constitution are the only reason you’re allowed to spout your opinion here. In this particular case, you’re spouting the party’s propaganda, but I doubt you’re always so gracious.
You should be thankful for those trivial points of law.
Joe Cool
Joe_Cool wrote:
Actually, most state Constitutions contain language similar to that of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – and the concept of a “bill of rights” predates even colonial American society.
But I digress.
FYI, only.
Industry responses to S&W’s decision:
and Taurus
Just so no one believes (or hopes!) that the rest of the gun industry is following S&W’s lead.
ExTank
The issue here is much more ominous than just a few liberals wanting more gun control. The federal government is conducting itself like the Mafia engaged in a protection racket. The leftists cannot get the outright gun prohibition and confiscation they want legitimately through the legislature, so they resort ‘legal bullying.’ This entire concept is outrageous. Nobody squawked much when the feds went after the tobacco companies this way, because most of us are not smokers.
What they are attempting to do is pick us off individually, depriving us of our constitutionally guaranteed rights little by little.
Abrogation of the law of the land by the executive department (whose primary function is supposedly ‘law enforcement’) is completely unconscionable and should not be tolerated.
::
Guns are mentioned in that Holy 2nd Amendment, :rolleyes: which some people seem to see as God’s Eleventh Commandment. Repealing it (or even re-wording it) would, to some, seem like asking God to take back one of the original Ten.
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.
tsk, tsk, tsk…
The reference to the niceties of the Constitution refers to the departed eponym.
Yes, the NRA now represents the radical fringe of gun owners, those that confuse the term liberty with license.
Yes, if necessary, the people of this country - not a party or the “Mafia” - may indeed choose to re-write the second amendment to abridge the “right” to bear firearms.
And when that day happens, when a free people, using the legal process of democracy say to you: “Sorry you can’t own automatic weapons any more.”, what will you do about it?
Shoot em, shoot em all?
Jab- Please explain why repealing or rewording the 2nd amendment would be desirable.
Then explain why the first amendment (or the 4th, or any of the others) should not be repealed or reworded.
::
Nixon:
2.li·cense
n.
1.
a.Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing.
I would submit that the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed rights in no way imitates ‘license.’
Note the bolded word above. It is “people.”
The people of this country lend our powerto the government for the express purpose of doing ourwill. This is accomplished through the legislative process. Note the bolded word “legislative.” This means a deliberative procedure resulting in representative assent before a law is passed. No such process has occurred with respect to the unlawful misuse of federal powers intended to deprive American citizens of our absolute right to bear arms.
::
CalifBoomer:
As an adherent to our founders intentions, you must be very familiar with their long debate between liberty and license - or the diffrence between responsible and irresponsible freedom.
By the way, one of our liberties is the right to sue anyone over anything, trusting in an independent judiciary not only to judge damages and awards but also to weed out and punish frivolous lawsuits.
And yes, that right to sue applies to our elected representatives including President Bloodsucker.
Ah… but what do the radical fringe called the NRA doing? Yes, using their lobbying power to block individual cities from suing gunmakers over damages from gun violence.
Sounds to me like abridging the sacred right to sue to defend another sacred right.
Nixon:
And it’s clear that Clinton & Comrades use of the federal machinery to accomplish their personal agenda is outside of this liberty.
::
Nixon wrote:
I disagree.
My Survivalist friend up north recently rescinded his membership in the NRA. Why? Because he felt that the NRA was too willing to compromise on gun legislation.
If you want to see an organization that does represent “the radical fringe of gun owners”, take a peek at Gun Owners of America ( www.goa.org ).
Incidentally, the reason I haven’t joined the National Rifle Association is that the NRA is sticking its fingers into areas that have nothing to do with firearms. F’rinstance, last year they pushed for tougher sentences for criminals – not tougher sentences for gun-using criminals, tougher sentences for all criminals. If I wanted that, I’d join the National Tougher Sentences For Criminals Association.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
I truly do not understand the position of so many gun advocates that reasonable compromise is not possible on these issues. I also do not understand the unwillingness of some gun control advocates to accept that the right to bear arms has no meaning unless applied to the individual, but since I generally disagree with the notion that the 2nd Ammendment is irrelevant to today’s society that position troubles me less.
What dismays me is that in these debates I invariably find myself grouped with positions that seem to me are fueled more by anti-federalist paranoia and political posturing than by a reasoned examination of the issues. Do some gun control advocates want to ban all handguns. Yes. Why should that stop us from enacting legislation to make gun ownership a more safe and responsible choice. Why do people object to owners (and sellers) accepting responsibility for their choices? Registration is not an precursor to inevitable confiscation. It is a means to tie accountability to the choice to own a tool designed for killing. Why do we object ot handguns being shipped with child-safety locks? Has it not been demonstrated enough times that irresponsible gun owners have allowed improperly trained children access to loaded weapons with disastrous results? If you don’t like the child safety lock, have it removed. If you object to the cost of that procedure, then learn how to do it yourself. Make your choice, take your responsibility. Why do we have a problem with that?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
My candidate for a revised 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of responsible, mentally fit individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This right shall be revoked for life if the individual in question has demonstrated mental unfitness and/or an irresponsible nature.”
One strike and you’re out. And before you purchase a weapon, you must first demonstrate your mental fitness and responsible nature.
Y’know, it’s interesting: Most police departments - and the armed forces - require applicants to pass a series of tests, mental and physical, before they’re allowed to handle weapons; guns aren’t issued right away. They assume a recruit needs to be taught how to handle a weapon BEFORE he gets one. But a civilian doesn’t have to prove a thing except his identity and that he has no felony convictions and that he has enough cash or credit to cover the purchase. Why is that?
Because, IMHO, those particular Amendments are already properly-worded. ANY improperly-worded Amendment should be re-written or repealed. As I indicated above, they aren’t God’s own Word, they’re the writings of fallible, mortal men. If they are found to be faulty, they should be changed, if not outright repealed.
I find it interesting that certain people of the 20th and 21st centuries should believe that the peak of human thought occurred 200 years (more or less) before they were born. It implies that we haven’t learned anything since. Let’s not forget that those same men also believed that only white male landowners had the right to vote. If they were wrong about that, maybe they were wrong elsewhere?
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.
Gaudere:
You very well may if algore is somehow elected President. The inventor of the internet is quoted “the internal combusition engine is the greatest threat to mankind.”
Spiritus:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
(reprinted ostensibly with Freedom’s permission)
jab,
How did I know you’d be in favor of more restrictive language for the 2nd couple with (no doubt) a desire for even broader interpretations of the others?
jab said:
This concept, in principle, is one with which I think we can all agree. This is and has been the NRA’s position, through lobbying for tougher ‘use a gun go to jail’ legislation, and through its various civlian marksmanship programs. Wayne LaPierre is and has been taking the Clinton Administration to task for NOT enforcing the multitude of gun laws already on the books. Instead they are pushing for stricter gun laws when they aren’t interested in enforcing existing gun laws. Why? Is smacks of hypocrisy and devious purpose.
jab:
They were smart enough and resourceful enough and courageous enought to give us the liberties we have. Do we possess the same attribute? Can we maintain what has been passed to us? Or are we going to trade our freedoms for a vague and false promise of
“security?”
::
Ah, but CalifBoomer:
In 19-something-or-other, Great Britain established gun control. From then through the present, 0 British, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 19-something-else, Canada established gun control. From then through the present, 0 Canadians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Nations with gun control do not always round up and exterminate large segments of their own population.
Tracer,
Notice the gaps in time between the gun confiscation and the massacre.
Another point is that the German gun laws actually first went into effect in 1928. The 1938 laws only reinforced what had already existed.
A 10 year gap is not a big deal. I think England and Australia only disarmed in the later half of the 1990’s.