Commerce clause and gun industry immunity bill

[cuchulainn]

OK, I want some opinions. I support the current bill going through Congress to stop suits against gun manufactures for the misuse of their products.

There are some on our side who oppose the bill on 1) federalism grounds and/or 2) right to sue grounds. I disagree with those of you who hold those opinions (reasons below). Tell my why I'm wrong.

I'm not really looking to engage in a heated debate, but rather to read a full accounting of the "law is bad" argument. So you'll forgive me if I sit back and read rather than roll up my sleeves and fight. Short answer: I want to hear you (read), not to fight.

My thinking

1) While the Commerce Clause was sorely abused and streched out of shape last century, it nonetheless exists for a good reason -- to give the national goverment permission to stop state-level activity/laws designed to interfere and even hurt interstate commerce.

These lawsuits interfere and hurt interstate commerce, so I see this as one of the few recent instances of legitimate Commerce Clause activity.

Federalism refers to forbidding the national goverment from taking actions not given to it by the Constitution. But protecting interstate commerce is given to it.

2) This doesn't stop all lawsuits against gun makers. It stops those that abuse the court system.

I frequently see complaints along the lines that you can sue Ford for selling a car that blows up, but if this law passes, you could not sue Taurus for selling a .357 that Luther McBadguy used to kill someone. Of course, we all know, that's an apples and oranges comparison.

As I read the law (I'm neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar), you still could sue Taurus if your .357 blew up in your face. The legislation specifies "misuse by others" as the topic of forbidden lawsuits and doesn't generally forbid liability lawsuits against gun makers.


****

Incidentally, strategically, I believe this bill would have been better served to forbid lawsuits based on post-sale customer misuse of any products, not just of guns, but c'est la vie.

(Taurus fans, don't take offense. I like my Taurus too ... it's just an example )

 

[Glock Glockler]

According to the research I've done, the purpose of the commerce clause was simply to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers against one another, as had been done frequently during the Articles of confederation. As long as that is not taking place, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Feds should be allowed to be involved, unless one state govt wants to sue a gun maker in another state.

One could make the arguement that one state is hurting interstate commerce via their stupid socialistic policies, so should the Feds be able to invade California and put Grey Davis' head on a spike? Ok, bad example. I guess the main point is that the states are suppoded to be able to be idiots, so long as their in accordance with the Constitution. The whole point was that there would be a giant experiement in self-govt, and everyone else would learn fron the mistakes of CA.

I'm wondering if this is not just another way for the Federal camel to get his nose under the tent. We should be taking efforts to fight gun control on every front, at every opportunity, not begging big daddy Fed to do things for us.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This doesn't stop all lawsuits against gun makers. It stops those that abuse the court system.

That's my understanding. Frankly, I think the legislation should be applied to all products, not just firearms.

 

[Boats]

Couple of decent constituionality prongs.

1. The Congress determines the scope of jurisdiction of the Federal Courts below the point of certain cases that are in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. No frivolous fed gun cases.

2. The federales have through past actions through the IC clause, on national gun control, have asserted that the feds preempt the field of gun regulation from state authority in all but criminal misuse matters against individuals. That certain plaintiffs in certain states are attempting to regulate the gun industry through the courts. such attempts at entering the field on the national level are rightly resisted by the federal government precluding such a state court regulatory effort.

As noted before, guns are easily in the stream of commerce, the SCOTUS will not likely strike down an attempt by the Congress to preserve the long standing legal doctrine of intervening criminal causality that HCI is attacking.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I agree with all of those who say that this law exceeds the federal government's authority under the commerce clause. So does the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons ban.........