I heard a short quick announcement by the CBS Radio news announcer that the NRA won a "major victory" in the Supreme Court.  It had something to do with the gun lawsuits but I couldn't hear the details.

Can someone post the details?

Thanks,

Merlin

The only Supreme Court story on their web site is the Microsoft Case.

Talk about [b]burying[/b] it!

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,308012-412,00.shtml[/url]

A left-handed victory, but I'll take it!

Thank you, Supreme Court! [beer]

Gun makers are getting some protection from a round of government lawsuits. The Supreme Court has refusing to get involved in a dispute over whether cities can sue gun companies over crime costs. Without comment, the court refused to review a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that upheld Louisiana's prohibition of such lawsuits
.
New Orleans had been the first city to sue, accusing gun makers of selling unsafe products. Dozens of cities and counties followed suit. But the Louisiana legislature blocked the case by passing a law that retroactively banned such lawsuits. Another 26 states have passed similar laws.

The high court's action apparently ends cities' efforts to sue gun companies despite state bans. (AP)

It is not a "victory". Whenever the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case it just means they don't want to get involved AT THIS TIME.

Gun Makers Hit The Mark

Gun makers are getting some protection from a round of government lawsuits. The Supreme Court has refusing to get involved in a dispute over whether cities can sue gun companies over crime costs. Without comment, the court refused to review a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that upheld Louisiana's prohibition of such lawsuits
.
New Orleans had been the first city to sue, accusing gun makers of selling unsafe products. Dozens of cities and counties followed suit. But the Louisiana legislature blocked the case by passing a law that retroactively banned such lawsuits. Another 26 states have passed similar laws.

The high court's action apparently ends cities' efforts to sue gun companies despite state bans. (AP)

This [b]IS[/b] a victory.  It means that the Louisana Supreme Court's ruling stands.  The US Sup's hardly ever take up a case they've refused once before.

I hope this decision is ringing loud & clear at the offices of HCI, CPHV, the Trial Lawyers Assoc., Million Mom Marchers, etc.  The anti-gunners just can't make up laws just because they feel this is the right way.  And the Trial Lawyers Assoc. can't line their pockets based on unconstitutional laws.

Oh but wait, some Kalifornia cities have some outstanding cases pertaining to this.  What should be done?  

Will they possibly ignore the Supreme Court and persue the suits?  Stay tuned, same Kalif time, same Kalif channel.

Chaingun, if I'm understanding this correctly (and what do I know....I'm just an ol' country boy) this will not affect CA suits. It is only relevant to those states where the state (state court) has prohibited the law suits.

Gunslinger's right.  The US judicial system is based on the principle of stare decisis, or legal precedent, and the decision of the Supreme Court to not hear a case does not set any type of legal precedent whatsoever.  Thus, by not taking the Lousiana Supreme Court case at this time, the US Supreme Court has basically given autonomy over gun lawsuits to the states.  Therefore, while gun lawsuits cannot continue in Lousiana per ruling by the Lousiana State Supreme Court, the outstanding cases in California are free to continue until the highest court in that state rules otherwise.  Even then, that is no guarantee that the issue of gun manufacturer lawsuits is over.  

It should also be noted that US Supreme Court decisions are only binding on matters of FEDERAL LAW.  State Supreme Courts have the ultimate authority and the final say on all issues related to state law, unless those laws conflict with Federal law.  Thus, states can also have their own laws regarding firearms (provided that they don't conflict with Federal Law), and should the California State Legislature, or some other state legislature choose to pass new legislation permitting gun lawsuits, there's really nothing the US Supreme Court could do.  This is due to the fact that there is no Federal law which protects the firearm industry from lawsuits.

Yeah, Imbroglio!  Really!  Can't you see the silver lining to all this?  I mean, it's not the 1968 GCA being voided or the 1934 NFA...oh wait, it doesn't mean a damn thing then.

They are probably refusing to review it because the NRA promised they'd go along quietly on a new, more effective "assault weapons ban". "Doesn't hurt the duck hunters? Well then who gives a damn. Oh, and send me some money."

Its that Libertarian disease. All or nuthin. [:D]

Normally I would search for and post the Supreme Court judge quote where he says basically the same thing that SOG did, but I am tired of wasting my time.

LMAO!!

Well, I guess there are some of us who believe this is a hollow victory, but I personally think it is a small step.  Since the anti-gunners brought us to these unjust laws one small at a time, and we should undo these unjust laws one step at a time.

SCROTUS has been ducking a final decision on the 2nd for decades. Just be glad that they didn't find against us although, if they do, I would much prefer it is while I am still young enough to do something about it.

LMAO!!!!!

Is this a Freudian slip, combining "SCOTUS" with "scrotum?"
[:D]

The Supreme Court decision not to hear the case is a victory in more ways than one.  Not only does the Louisiana law stand, but more importantly, it signals that we have a Supreme Court that is willing to say "This is a state matter and is therefore none of our business."

It's a start, anyway.

Garandman,
No, not freudian, intentional!