1911Forum banner

Brady Campaign--defenders of the Constitution?

397 11
This is almost ridicuolus enough to be amusing. The Brady Bunch has announced its intention of challenging the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on Constitutional grounds! So now they're defenders of Constitutional rights, eh? Link

Gun Control Group Plans to Challenge Protections for Gun Industry
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 19, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The House is expected to vote Wednesday on a bill that would restrict lawsuits against gun makers and gun sellers for the criminal misuse of their products. But even before the voting begins, a gun control group announced it would challenge the measure on constitutional grounds.

The Senate passed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" in July, and the House is expected to follow suit.

The National Rifle Association says the bill will stop "meritless, reckless lawsuits" that are filed with the goal of bankrupting the gun industry.

But lawyers at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence call the bill a "special interest extravaganza" that threatens the rights of "gun victims."

The Brady Center, which has filed a number of negligence/nuisance lawsuits against the gun industry, said Congress can pass the bill, the president can sign it, but "this shameful law will not stand."

Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, called the bill "an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us. We believe state and federal courts across this nation are prepared to strike it down."

Brady Center lawyers have nine pending lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers, in which they represent individual crime victims as well as cities seeking to recover the cost of crimes involving guns.(The cases are pending in the states of Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, North Carolina and in the District of Columbia.)

The first of the nine cases, a lawsuit brought against the gun industry by New York City, is scheduled to go to trial in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y., on November 28. The suit charges the gun industry with contributing to a public nuisance in New York City by selling guns through retail dealers who facilitate gun trafficking.

The Brady Center anticipates that the defendants in those pending lawsuits will try to have their cases dismissed once the bill becomes law.

Second Amendment supporters say the New York City lawsuit and others like it are nothing more than back-door gun control.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
larry starling said:
Let them make as much noise as possible. It only makes them look like the idiots:biglaugh: they are......
I think it was Voltaire that said something like, "I have only made but one prayer to God, a very short one. "Oh lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
Marty
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Here's my concern: let's assume S. 397 passes in the House tomorrow, and Bush signs it (even the Brady Bunch admits that these things are almost inevitable). Now if the Bradys' challenge is successful (which doesn't sound likely to me, but I don't really know), is the entire S. 397 thrown out, with the amendments, or is just the lawsuit protection thrown out--leaving us stuck with the child lock requirements and AP ammo language, with nothing to show for our concessions?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
They truely have no shame...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
kjhof said:
Here's my concern: let's assume S. 397 passes in the House tomorrow, and Bush signs it (even the Brady Bunch admits that these things are almost inevitable). Now if the Bradys' challenge is successful (which doesn't sound likely to me, but I don't really know), is the entire S. 397 thrown out, with the amendments, or is just the lawsuit protection thrown out--leaving us stuck with the child lock requirements and AP ammo language, with nothing to show for our concessions?
That would depend on the nature of the "challenge" and the courts' decision if the challenge is a law suit. I'd expect any legal challege to wind up in the Supreme Court.

I believe that there already are laws protecting commerce in some industries so my guess is that the Brady Campaign would have an uphill battle that would end in the defeat of such a legal challenge. One such law, for example, protects internet service providers against liability for the acts of internet users over which they have no control.

As for other challenges, the Brady Campaign and Gun Owners of America both have been mounting other challenges on the bill for some time. The Brady Campaign says it isn't gun control. Gun Owners of America says it is gun control. Both groups urge their members to contact their legislators to defeat the bill. So people have the opportunity to write their legislators and say they want the bill defeated because they belong to either the Bradys or the G.O.A. We live in a wonderful time, don't we.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005

A larger perspective on S. 397 might help settle some nervousness about it. The House of Representatives is considering a similar bill intended to protect the food industry against liability from suits against it by people who claim that it is responsible for their obesity. The bill is HR-554, its title is the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005," and you can find more about it at http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr554.asp. Here's the backgrounder:

Today, the American food industry, the nation's leading private sector employer, is facing a barrage of legal claims alleging it should pay monetary damages and be subject to equitable remedies based on legal theories claiming it should be held liable for the over-consumption of its legal products. The food service industry employs around 11.7 million people, making it the nation's largest employer outside of government. The food and beverage industries are a significant part of our national economy. The activities of manufacturers and sellers of foods and beverages substantially affect interstate and foreign commerce. A person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with a person's weight gain or obesity is based on a multitude of factors, including genetic factors and the lifestyle and physical fitness decisions of individuals, such that a person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with a person's weight gain or obesity cannot be attributed to the consumption of any specific food or beverage. Because fostering a culture of acceptance of personal responsibility is one of the most important ways to promote a healthier society, lawsuits seeking to blame individual food and beverage providers for a person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with a person's weight gain or obesity are not only legally frivolous and economically damaging, but also harmful to a healthy America.
It's relevant to any legal challenge that the Brady Campaign might pursue on the Constitutional basis described by Dennis Hannigan:

"an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us. We believe state and federal courts across this nation are prepared to strike it down."
Mr. Hannigan and the Brady Campaign need to get out more so they can see that S. 397 is part of a growing dissatisfaction with frivolous lawsuits against businesses for the misuse of their products. At least some legislators are at last beginning to recognize that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. That's one of the things that rational gun owners have been saying for quite a long time: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by fighting the NRA about silliness such as gun locks.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
I would like to make this point ABUNDANTLY clear The GOA and people like myself are FOR HB 800 the clean version of this bill. The Brady's and the VPC are against BOTH the house and senate bills.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
To say that gun kills people - is the same as it’s my pencil’s fault that I spell the word "worng" (or in this case, my keyboard). :scratch:

Let’s sue the pencil company for our kids!! :mummy:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
hkfooey said:
To say that gun kills people - is the same as it’s my pencil’s fault that I spell the word "worng" (or in this case, my keyboard). :scratch:

Let’s sue the pencil company for our kids!! :mummy:
A few years ago a friend burned a hole in my sofa with a carelessly dropped match.

Here is a situation in which the match company was clearly at fault for manufacturing a product without sufficient safeguards and the grocery that sold my friend the book of matches was at fault for selling them to him without first determining whether he should be trusted with matches.

In addition matches, as everyone knows, are used to ignite cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, and therefore have no legitimate purpose in today's world.

Matches cause fires. Fires are bad. Matches are bad.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top