And that includes Judge Reinhardt.
- A triumph for good sense, good policy, and the Constitution: Supreme Court declines to disturb 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, thus ending NYC’s wrongful and unfair lawsuit against gun makers [AP/Law.com] Interestingly, the Obama administration joined its predecessor in urging that the law’s constitutionality not be questioned [Alphecca] One of my fond memories is of giving the lead presentation to the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing on the bill during its drive for passage.
- “Tinkering With DWI Evidence Costs NY Judge and Law Prof Their Jobs” [ABA Journal; Buffalo, N.Y.]
- Coalition of media organizations urges First Circuit to reverse judge’s “truth-no-defense” defamation ruling, but the Circuit denies en banc rehearing [Bayard/Citizen Media Law and sequel; earlier]
- Car-crash arbitration-fixing angle heating up in probe of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania judicial scandals [ABA Journal]
- ACORN helping with the Census? Based on their voter work, we can be sure they’ll give it that 110% effort [Jammie Wearing Fool]
- To protect the public, why do you ask? Cook County, Ill. sheriff engages in “constant surveillance of Craigslist’s erotic services” [Patrick at Popehat]
- Imposed-contract provisions mean that Employee Free Choice Act is “not as bad as thought. It’s worse!” [Kaus]
- West Virginia lawmaker proud of introducing ban-Barbie bill: “If I’ve helped just 10 kids out with this, to me it was worth it” [AP/Charleston Gazette-Mail, earlier]
Don Surber welcomes Hizzoner’s conversion; Sister Toldjah remains to be convinced (disclaimer; and see quote from me here; our page on firearms litigation and regulation). More: By coincidence, the Bloomberg administration is in court at the moment trying to argue that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn’t actually put the kibosh on the city’s gun suits, despite a mountain of evidence that it was intended to do just that (Mark Hamblett, “2nd Circuit Hears Arguments on Letting NYC’s Gun Suit Go to Trial, New York Law Journal, Sept. 24).
- In the Supreme Court November 29: Watters v. Wachovia. Also an AEI panel November 28, broadcast on C-SPAN1, 2pm to 4pm Eastern. [Point of Law; AEI; Zywicki @ Volokh]
- Also in the Supreme Court November 29: Massachusetts v. EPA global warming regulation case. Previously an AEI panel November 21. [Adler @ Volokh; AEI; C-SPAN (Real Media)]
- Legal cliche: If the facts are against you, pound the law; if the law is against you, pound the facts; if both are against you, pound the table. Table-pounding class of Gerry Spence protegee offers lessons in emotionally creating jury sympathy worth millions. [LATimes]
- What judicial activism?, Part 7356: Indiana state court judge holds “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” unconstitutional, complains gun industry supported the law. [Indianapolis Star via Bashman; Indiana Law Blog]
- Entertaining doctor victory in medmal case. [Musings of a Dinosaur via Kevin MD]
- Dahlia Lithwick gets something right; if only it was on an issue more important than a suit advertisement. [Slate]
- Leftover from Thanksgiving: lawyers acting like turkeys. [Ambrogi]
- Ninth Circuit grants potential standing to monkeys over Kozinski dissent. Earlier: Oct. 21, 2004. [Bashman roundup of links]
- Gloria Allred joins the Borat pile-on. [LATimes]
- Speaking of, here’s the future case of Allred v. Kramer. More Allred: Oct. 16. [Evanier]
- Speaking of Allred nostalgia, and of primates, whatever happened to chimpanzee victim St. James Davis? (Mar. 17, 2005; Mar. 8, 2005) [Inside Edition; “The Original Musings”; CNN Pipeline ($)]
- More Allred nostalgia: is Veronica Mars‘ Francis Capra the next Hunter Tylo? Discuss. [Prettier than Napoleon]
The first battle over the constitutionality and scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is taking place in Judge Weinstein’s courtroom in City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.. The AEI Liability Project has the briefing available in the November 29 entry in its Documents in the News page. Previous coverage: Apr. 13, 2004, Nov. 9, and Nov. 25.
On Wednesday, at a White House ceremony, President Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, setting up a likely battle as gun control advocates attempt to counter motions to dismiss various pending lawsuits (William Freebairn, “Gunmaker seeks suit dismissal”, Springfield (Mass.) Republican, Oct. 29). The Legal Talk Network is airing an audio discussion on the new law among David Kopel of the Independence Institute (more), UCLA lawprof Eugene Volokh and Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I’ve been speaking in favor of a measure like this for years; see, e.g., Apr. 7 and this site’s ongoing coverage of gun litigation more generally, as well as this discussion with Michael Krauss at Point of Law. Jacob Sullum, like Krauss, continues to disagree with me on federalist grounds.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page celebrates the likelihood that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will pass, which would end the gun-control-through-litigation movement.
State legislatures have been rolling back firearm laws because the restrictions were both ineffectual and unpopular. Gun-controllers have responded by avoiding legislatures and going to court, teaming with trial lawyers and big city mayors to file lawsuits blaming gun makers for murder. Companies have been hit with at least 25 major lawsuits, from the likes of Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago and Cleveland. A couple of the larger suits (New York and Washington, D.C.) are sitting in front of highly creative judges and could drag on for years.
Which seems to be part of the point. The plaintiffs have asked judges to impose the sort of “remedies” that Congress has refused to impose, such as trigger locks or tougher restrictions on gun sales. Some mayors no doubt also hope for a big payday. But short of that, the gun-control lobby’s goal seems to be keep the suits going long enough to drain profit from the low-margin gun industry.
(Wall Street Journal, Jul. 27 ($)). Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV yesterday became the sixtieth co-sponsor. Still, the Journal may be celebrating prematurely. Last term, the legislation was scuttled by the attachment of clever poison-pill amendments that caused the most fervent guns-rights advocates to withdraw support for the bill, so the fact that the current bill has supermajority support surprisingly doesn’t mean that it’s out of the woods yet. For more, see our ongoing coverage.
Legislation is once again moving through Congress to pre-empt lawsuits which seek to saddle the manufacturers and lawful sellers of guns with the costs of crime. At the request of supporters of H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I wrote a letter to the House Judiciary Committee explaining why such a bill is warranted now more than ever (longtime readers may recall that I testified on the Hill two years ago in favor of the measure). The new letter is here. (More: Mar. 15 hearings; chairman’s opening statement.)
Also, the Illinois legislature has soundly defeated efforts, backed by Chicago Mayor Daley and pro-gun-litigation groups, to alter state law so as to encourage lawsuits against gun dealers (“More Daley-backed gun bills go down in Senate committee”, AP/KWQC, Mar. 15; “House rejects measure to let victims sue gun dealers”, AP/KWQC, Apr. 6). (Update Apr. 16: backers revive measures, but they are defeated on floor of Ill. Senate). And David Hardy of the extremely promising-looking new blawg Arms and the Law finds that when law reviews present a viewpoint one-sidedly hostile to the right of individual gun ownership, it’s sometimes owing to the careful spadework of a generous outfit called the Joyce Foundation (Apr. 3)(further controversy on last point: here and here).