Thursday, October 20, 2005
Stopping Misuse of the Judiciary
About 3 months after the Senate passed this law, the House today passed, 283-144, a law which stops nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Dave Kopel, who lives in these parts, has an astute analysis over at Volokh Conspiracy. The gun sites (blogging sites about guns) are jubilant. President Bush is expected to sign it right quick.
"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), said.
I'm happy too, but here's a little tidbit which gives me pause: Under the measure, a half-dozen pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. Doesn't the Fifth Amendment prevent that? I think it might. Although the Kelo decision has made a cruel mockery of it, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in a different part, prohibits the government taking property without just compensation. Being the victim of negligence has a recognized value even before the lawsuit is filed--it is called a chose in action. If the 'local governments' had choses in action in the lawsuits that had been filed, and the federal government takes them away with a new law and gives the holder of the chose in action nothing in return, I, for one, have a problem with that (as much as I hate these sorts of lawsuits). You can't violate the Constitution even if it's for a good cause, namely, preventing the abuse of the judiciary. The anti-gun forces were attempting to bankrupt gun makers through unsuccessful suit after unsuccessful suit, where the costs to the gun manufacturers for defense lawyers is out of control. Maybe it's OK that it's local governments, whose chose in action is rendered worthless, and not individuals.
Colorado has had, for years, this sort of immunity for gunmakers who make a good product which, through no fault of theirs, is used in a crime to hurt or murder someone. We're still standing.
"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), said.
I'm happy too, but here's a little tidbit which gives me pause: Under the measure, a half-dozen pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. Doesn't the Fifth Amendment prevent that? I think it might. Although the Kelo decision has made a cruel mockery of it, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in a different part, prohibits the government taking property without just compensation. Being the victim of negligence has a recognized value even before the lawsuit is filed--it is called a chose in action. If the 'local governments' had choses in action in the lawsuits that had been filed, and the federal government takes them away with a new law and gives the holder of the chose in action nothing in return, I, for one, have a problem with that (as much as I hate these sorts of lawsuits). You can't violate the Constitution even if it's for a good cause, namely, preventing the abuse of the judiciary. The anti-gun forces were attempting to bankrupt gun makers through unsuccessful suit after unsuccessful suit, where the costs to the gun manufacturers for defense lawyers is out of control. Maybe it's OK that it's local governments, whose chose in action is rendered worthless, and not individuals.
Colorado has had, for years, this sort of immunity for gunmakers who make a good product which, through no fault of theirs, is used in a crime to hurt or murder someone. We're still standing.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:08 PM 
