Georgia passes law banning gun suits.
- Thread starter Morgan
- Start date
Mike in VA
New member
It's passage was on the CBS news this moring with the addition of "under heavy pressure from the NRA", no mention of bad law, nuisance suits, or greedy, grandstanding, stupid politicians wastine the taxpayer's money. M2
Rob Pincus
New member
A Broadcast Email went out to several Gun Industry people (mostly the promotions/marketing people) under the title "Common Sense for a Change" and linked to the same AP story.
I am watching this with interest. There is an amazing divergence in this country right now. Not only is it state to state, but often (as in Georgia)... within the states.
Start to watch for the lines to be drawn, becuase the split in idealogy seems to be getting closer and closer to us.
As Colorado contemplates Constitutional right to carry, California is contemplating banning further sales of firearms.
At the same time that the waiting period ended for federal purchases, the gov't is talking about ending legal private sales (anti-gun-show laws will have this effect).
I worry about the Georgia Assembly's ability to enforce the Bill. Meanwhile, the NRA and the Manufacturers will still be forced to expend resources in the legal arena against other cities. These expenditures will effect the marketplace. R&D will suffer and prices will rise.
Inn the wake of this victory, there is still a war brewing.
------------------
-Essayons
[This message has been edited by Rob (edited 02-09-99).]
I am watching this with interest. There is an amazing divergence in this country right now. Not only is it state to state, but often (as in Georgia)... within the states.
Start to watch for the lines to be drawn, becuase the split in idealogy seems to be getting closer and closer to us.
As Colorado contemplates Constitutional right to carry, California is contemplating banning further sales of firearms.
At the same time that the waiting period ended for federal purchases, the gov't is talking about ending legal private sales (anti-gun-show laws will have this effect).
I worry about the Georgia Assembly's ability to enforce the Bill. Meanwhile, the NRA and the Manufacturers will still be forced to expend resources in the legal arena against other cities. These expenditures will effect the marketplace. R&D will suffer and prices will rise.
Inn the wake of this victory, there is still a war brewing.
------------------
-Essayons
[This message has been edited by Rob (edited 02-09-99).]
Andy....
The nature of any law, constitutional or not, intelligent or not, is that it can be changed, overturn, removed etc.
Thus, while we can take heart and are pleased with laws like this, nothing is written in stone. A future GA state Senate can over turn it.
As to the my opinion of Atlanta fighting the law on Constitutional grounds, I think it is Constitutionally correct. The US Constitution granted the bulk of the power to the State, not the Feds and not cities. This is why we have a Vermont CCW and a California CCW on paper only. Further, these lawsuits are civil and don't have to be based on proven fact. The precedent would allow cities to sue anyone or any business for anything. Meaning, I don't have to prove you did anything illegal or negligent..I can just take a shot and sue you. With unlimited deep pockets (tax base, etc) a city could in theory go rogue and sue all the time without risk and there would be nothing to stop it.
Georgia passed this law and its great....but we can't relax now. Politicians are fickle, some pro-selfdefence/gun politicians are now in deep trouble and you know that they are marked by the anti's.
The best things that are coming out of this, the tobacco suits, etc is that it is getting harder and harder for the liberals to claim Constitutional adherence. I for one am pleased everytime anything is challenged on Constitutional grounds....at some point in the near future it is going to be necessary to have a Constitutional Convention and then the gloves come off and the Liberals will have to show themselves in the sharp light.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
The nature of any law, constitutional or not, intelligent or not, is that it can be changed, overturn, removed etc.
Thus, while we can take heart and are pleased with laws like this, nothing is written in stone. A future GA state Senate can over turn it.
As to the my opinion of Atlanta fighting the law on Constitutional grounds, I think it is Constitutionally correct. The US Constitution granted the bulk of the power to the State, not the Feds and not cities. This is why we have a Vermont CCW and a California CCW on paper only. Further, these lawsuits are civil and don't have to be based on proven fact. The precedent would allow cities to sue anyone or any business for anything. Meaning, I don't have to prove you did anything illegal or negligent..I can just take a shot and sue you. With unlimited deep pockets (tax base, etc) a city could in theory go rogue and sue all the time without risk and there would be nothing to stop it.
Georgia passed this law and its great....but we can't relax now. Politicians are fickle, some pro-selfdefence/gun politicians are now in deep trouble and you know that they are marked by the anti's.
The best things that are coming out of this, the tobacco suits, etc is that it is getting harder and harder for the liberals to claim Constitutional adherence. I for one am pleased everytime anything is challenged on Constitutional grounds....at some point in the near future it is going to be necessary to have a Constitutional Convention and then the gloves come off and the Liberals will have to show themselves in the sharp light.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Well, maybe those emails to my representative and senator did some good.
Have to watch them though.
Have to watch them though.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
|
> ATLANTA (Reuters) - Georgia passed a law Tuesday barring cities and
> counties from filing lawsuits against gun makers, thwarting a landmark
> effort by Atlanta to sue handgun manufacturers to recoup its expenses
> from gun violence.
>
> The action may be followed by similar legislative efforts in other
> states,supporters said.
>
> Atlanta Mayor Campbell called the new law ``outrageous''.
>
> Georgia Governor Roy Barnes signed the bill shortly after it was passed
> by the House on Tuesday following its approval by the Senate on Monday.
>
> The bill, which makes it illegal for cities and counties in the state
> to sue the firearms industry, was crafted to cover pending and future
> lawsuits.
>
> ``The legislation in no way limits any individual's right to bring suit
> under our legal system,' said Barnes, a member of the National Rifle
> Association (NRA)who was endorsed by the group in his election
> campaign.
>
> The bill was enacted after Atlanta filed a lawsuit last Thursday
> against 15 gunmakers and two trade associations, accusing the companies
> of manufacturing unsafe products.
>
> Atlanta became the fifth city -- after New Orleans, Chicago, Miami and
> Bridgeport, Conn. -- to sue gun makers for damages for crime, deaths
> and injuries involving handguns.
>
> The lawsuits are modeled against similar, successful litigation filed
> by states against the tobacco industry.
>
> ``I think it's outrageous that the legislature would seek to take away
> the rights of a city or any individual to file a lawsuit,'' Mayor
> Campbell told reporters after the legislature approved the bill.
>
> ``You're seeing the very powerful gun lobby and their media machine,
> which is trying to obfuscate the issue,'' he said.
>
> Campbell, who said last week he believed Georgia's courts will rule the
> legislation unconstitutional, said he was disappointed but had had
> expected it to pass.
>
> ``We are a little concerned about the margin of victory and the speed
> at which it passed,'' he added.
>
> The Georgia action, which was supported by the NRA, signals the
> beginning of efforts by the industry to protect itself against such
> suits, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor said.
>
> ``Weapons and ammunition manufacturers are stepping up in a proactive
> way to prevent what happened in the tobacco industry from happening to
> them,'' Taylor told Reuters.
>
> ``We believe the lawsuits being brought against the gun industry by
> certain big cities are frivolous and without merit,'' NRA lobbyist
> James Baker said in a statement. ``NRA will be working with legislators
> nationwide to spread this groundbreaking legislation and the protection
> it provides.''
YEEEHAWWW!
> ATLANTA (Reuters) - Georgia passed a law Tuesday barring cities and
> counties from filing lawsuits against gun makers, thwarting a landmark
> effort by Atlanta to sue handgun manufacturers to recoup its expenses
> from gun violence.
>
> The action may be followed by similar legislative efforts in other
> states,supporters said.
>
> Atlanta Mayor Campbell called the new law ``outrageous''.
>
> Georgia Governor Roy Barnes signed the bill shortly after it was passed
> by the House on Tuesday following its approval by the Senate on Monday.
>
> The bill, which makes it illegal for cities and counties in the state
> to sue the firearms industry, was crafted to cover pending and future
> lawsuits.
>
> ``The legislation in no way limits any individual's right to bring suit
> under our legal system,' said Barnes, a member of the National Rifle
> Association (NRA)who was endorsed by the group in his election
> campaign.
>
> The bill was enacted after Atlanta filed a lawsuit last Thursday
> against 15 gunmakers and two trade associations, accusing the companies
> of manufacturing unsafe products.
>
> Atlanta became the fifth city -- after New Orleans, Chicago, Miami and
> Bridgeport, Conn. -- to sue gun makers for damages for crime, deaths
> and injuries involving handguns.
>
> The lawsuits are modeled against similar, successful litigation filed
> by states against the tobacco industry.
>
> ``I think it's outrageous that the legislature would seek to take away
> the rights of a city or any individual to file a lawsuit,'' Mayor
> Campbell told reporters after the legislature approved the bill.
>
> ``You're seeing the very powerful gun lobby and their media machine,
> which is trying to obfuscate the issue,'' he said.
>
> Campbell, who said last week he believed Georgia's courts will rule the
> legislation unconstitutional, said he was disappointed but had had
> expected it to pass.
>
> ``We are a little concerned about the margin of victory and the speed
> at which it passed,'' he added.
>
> The Georgia action, which was supported by the NRA, signals the
> beginning of efforts by the industry to protect itself against such
> suits, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor said.
>
> ``Weapons and ammunition manufacturers are stepping up in a proactive
> way to prevent what happened in the tobacco industry from happening to
> them,'' Taylor told Reuters.
>
> ``We believe the lawsuits being brought against the gun industry by
> certain big cities are frivolous and without merit,'' NRA lobbyist
> James Baker said in a statement. ``NRA will be working with legislators
> nationwide to spread this groundbreaking legislation and the protection
> it provides.''
YEEEHAWWW!
Jeff Thomas
New member
"'I think it's outrageous that the legislature would seek to take away the rights of a city or any individual to file a lawsuit,' Mayor Campbell told reporters after the legislature approved the bill. 'You're seeing the very powerful gun lobby and their media machine, which is trying to obfuscate the issue,' he said."
Well, I'm not an attorney, but as I understand it, the Georgia state law has nothing to do with prohibiting individuals from filing suit. And, with regards to obfuscation, from what I have seen of Mayor Campbell's statements, if there has ever been someone who could recognize obfuscation it would be this esteemed mayor. Obfuscation seems to be hizonner's middle name.
On a deadly serious note, I don't know if I would celebrate too soon. I agree with Rob 100% - the battle lines are being drawn, the polarization in this country continues to build (partly fueled by the impeachment process and lack of results, and blatant liberal hypocrisy), and these suits will impact the industry.
My question is this: if more states pass such laws, why wouldn't the trial lawyers simply shift to representing crime victims? I suppose it depends upon the legal argument - the negligent marketing argument, such as in Brooklyn, fits just fine for individuals. The 'cost' of violence could be brought down from the municipal to the individual level - perhaps a class action? And, I suspect we will see additional, more novel arguments as well. Any attorneys out there with an opinion as well?
Well, I'm not an attorney, but as I understand it, the Georgia state law has nothing to do with prohibiting individuals from filing suit. And, with regards to obfuscation, from what I have seen of Mayor Campbell's statements, if there has ever been someone who could recognize obfuscation it would be this esteemed mayor. Obfuscation seems to be hizonner's middle name.
On a deadly serious note, I don't know if I would celebrate too soon. I agree with Rob 100% - the battle lines are being drawn, the polarization in this country continues to build (partly fueled by the impeachment process and lack of results, and blatant liberal hypocrisy), and these suits will impact the industry.
My question is this: if more states pass such laws, why wouldn't the trial lawyers simply shift to representing crime victims? I suppose it depends upon the legal argument - the negligent marketing argument, such as in Brooklyn, fits just fine for individuals. The 'cost' of violence could be brought down from the municipal to the individual level - perhaps a class action? And, I suspect we will see additional, more novel arguments as well. Any attorneys out there with an opinion as well?