And yet more good news from D.C.

[ELB]

From Dave Kopel on The Volokh Conspiracy

A unanimous 3-judge decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has dismissed a municipal lawsuit brought against firearms manufacturers, District of Columbia v. Beretta et al. The court ruled that the suit was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005, and which by its terms applies to all pending and future cases.

In the first part of the decision, the court rules that the congressional act applies to lawsuits brought under D.C.'s Strict Liability Act, which imposes absolute liability on manufacturers for certain firearms injuries. The second part of the decision rejects various arguments that it is unconstitutional for a congressional statute to be applied to a lawsuit that has already been filed.

Professor Reynolds has the right idea...

Now for the lawsuit by gun manufacturers against various municipalities, charging a conspiracy to deprive them of civil rights . . . .

elb

[frankie_the_yankee]

Professor Reynolds has the right idea...

Now for the lawsuit by gun manufacturers against various municipalities, charging a conspiracy to deprive them of civil rights . . . .

elb

Here! Here!

I would think that such a case would be on pretty firm ground. We've known for a long time that the lawsuits were intended, win, lose, or draw, to bankrupt the industry and/or to make guns so expensive that for practical pruposes only the government (which gets its money at gunpoint) could afford them. And how have we known this? Because from time to time, various people working the gun ban side have told us.

Given that cities have open meeting requirements that they must fulfill, most of what they do, and why, should be matters of record somewhere.

I have long thought that such obvious abuse of the legal system to accomplish a legislative goal that could not be reached through the legislative process itself, was illegal on some level. It's good to see that others think the same way.

[Kalrog]

This is good news.

[TX Rancher]

Here! Here!

I would think that such a case would be on pretty firm ground. We've known for a long time that the lawsuits were intended, win, lose, or draw, to bankrupt the industry and/or to make guns so expensive that for practical pruposes only the government (which gets its money at gunpoint) could afford them. And how have we known this? Because from time to time, various people working the gun ban side have told us.

Given that cities have open meeting requirements that they must fulfill, most of what they do, and why, should be matters of record somewhere.

I have long thought that such obvious abuse of the legal system to accomplish a legislative goal that could not be reached through the legislative process itself, was illegal on some level. It's good to see that others think the same way.

While I agree with your sentiment, during all my engagements with the government on taxes, I have never had them point a firearm at me

[KBCraig]

the government (which gets its money at gunpoint)

While I agree with your sentiment, during all my engagements with the government on taxes, I have never had them point a firearm at me

Then you've never refused to pay taxes.

If you refuse to pay, and decline to go quietly along when they try to take you away, you'll soon see the guns that back up all the paperwork.

[frankie_the_yankee]

the government (which gets its money at gunpoint)

While I agree with your sentiment, during all my engagements with the government on taxes, I have never had them point a firearm at me

Then you've never refused to pay taxes.

If you refuse to pay, and decline to go quietly along when they try to take you away, you'll soon see the guns that back up all the paperwork.

Bingo!

And for the record, I've never refused to pay taxes either. But that doesn't keep me from knowing what will happen if I ever did.

[TX Rancher]

the government (which gets its money at gunpoint)

While I agree with your sentiment, during all my engagements with the government on taxes, I have never had them point a firearm at me

Then you've never refused to pay taxes.

If you refuse to pay, and decline to go quietly along when they try to take you away, you'll soon see the guns that back up all the paperwork.

The statement was said in jest...but just to respond to the comments, I have refused to pay taxes in the past, went to court, won my case, and never had a gun pointed at me.

As I said, I get the intent...

[ELB]

In the spirit of my original post that started this thread: Heh.

http://www.nysun.com/article/69371

Bloomberg Is Deposed in Guns Case

Mr. Bloomberg spent the day sitting for a deposition in a civil lawsuit, the first time he has done so as mayor. The defamation case against the mayor was brought by a South Carolina gun salesman who claims the mayor spoke ill of him in the press. The deposition lasted the entire workday, and the topics ranged from Mr. Bloomberg's views on the Second Amendment to whether he intended to run for president.

But then there is this...

Regarding a possible presidential run, a lawyer for Mr. Bloomberg told him not to state his current plans, but to speak only of his mindset in spring 2006, according to a video of the deposition viewed by The New York Sun.

"I was not planning to run for president then," Mr. Bloomberg said.

Never crossed his mind. Sure.


As to the slight divergence in thread topic: Law is ulimately based on violence, and the threat of violence. It can be a long process with many intermediate threats, and it can grind to a halt before reaching a logical conclusion, but ultimately it is enforced with guns.

elb