The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the case of City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. The case before the court was a ridiculous attempt by the City of New York to hold a gun manufacturer liable for the illegal use of guns. The city attempted to bypass the legislative process and the will of the people with an appeal to what would have amounted to the worst type of judicial activism an attack against the Bill of Rights.
Given its absurdity, this case should have never been heard. If the court would have found in favor of the city, the real losers would have been the responsible owners of hand guns that have every right to secure and defend their property and loved ones with lethal force when under attack. How would such a win actually curtail crime? The attempt to transfer the responsibility for a criminal act from the criminal to the manufacturer dodges the real societal problems and instead looked for a convenient target — the gun manufacturer. Who would ever protect the gun manufacturer? Thankfully, this court did, and resisted the city’s urging for judicial activism.
Phyllis Schlafly covers the decision over at Townhall. She writes the following:
The lawsuit cited the harm from gun sales while ignoring evidence that the benefits far outweigh the harm. The trial court sided with Bloomberg, but the appellate court said “no” and put an end to the nonsense.
Congress had legislated the basis for this decision by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. The PLCAA protects against a “qualified civil liability action,” defined broadly to include almost any lawsuit brought against a gun manufacturer or seller based on “the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm distributed in interstate commerce. On the day it was signed into law by President George W. Bush, gun manufacturers moved to dismiss this case, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now enforced the law.
The appellate court rejected an argument that this law denied access to the courts. New York City can and does sue all the time, but Congress properly rejected the ridiculous notion that the city could sue businesses over a typically beneficial product that was later used illegally.
Should General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. be held liable for crimes committed by drunk drivers, or baseball bat suppliers be sued for criminal beatings inflicted with their products? Of course not. It was an outrage that courts even entertained such actions against gun manufacturers and suppliers.
If Congress had not effectively withdrawn jurisdiction, gun manufacturers would be reluctant to produce guns and many might go out of business. This intimidation would deter the lawful sale of guns.
That’s exactly what gun-control advocates have long wanted: legislation from the bench that they could not persuade real legislatures to pass. A majority of legislators, who are elected, see the absurdity of gun control and recognize the valuable self-defense function of guns.
0 Responses to “NY City’s Anti-Gun Rights Lawsuit Dismissed”