one might note, it's about time.

[alan]

Posters Question:

With this ruling, might it be that the end of these ridiculous suits is in sight?

NYC Lawsuit Against America's Firearms
Manufacturers Denied By U.S. Supreme Court
Fairfax, Va. - On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court denied consideration of New York City and Washington, D.C. lawsuits, New York v. Beretta and Lawson v. Beretta, respectively, that tried to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals. The Court 's order leaves standing a pair of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and District of Columbia Court of Appeals, both of which found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, prevents these types of lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers and dealers.

"Big city mayors conceived these lawsuits to try and litigate American gun manufacturers - who President Roosevelt referred to as "the arsenal of democracy" - out of business," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "NRA has always believed the courts would agree with Congress that the PLCAA rightfully stops these reckless and politically motivated lawsuits."

In 2000, New York City, Washington, D.C. and several individual plaintiffs sued gun manufacturers, based on the idea that although they manufactured a legal product, forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees just to prove their innocence in court would drive them into bankruptcy. In addition to being based on a bogus legal theory, these lawsuits endangered American armed forces and law enforcement. During congressional debate over the PLCAA, the Department of Defense agreed with the NRA that bankrupting U.S. gun makers and making us dependent on foreign countries like France, Russia or China for small arms is a threat to America's domestic and international security.

"We are pleased that the courts have recognized the misguided intent of these lawsuits," concluded Cox. " America's law-abiding firearms manufacturers must be protected from reckless suits that have no legal merit."

-NRA-

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=12204 - for a link.

But France? Dependent on France? Where did that come from?

I tried to look for a link on the SCOTUS cite, but I guess I don't understand it as searching for gun, firearms, etc. didn't bring this up. Anybody?

[alan]

Glenn E. Meyer wrote in part:

But France? Dependent on France? Where did that come from?

-------------------------

Seems as if it came from the NRA and or Dept. of Defense. I too find reference to France curious.

[Al Norris]

Glenn, the cert denials are listed under the Heading, "Orders and Journals --> Orders"

From there you will get a list of misc. orders. Select the one that just says "03/09/2009 - Orders." When the PDF opens up, scroll through it and you will find:

08-530 NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. V. BERETTA U.S.A. CORP., ET AL.
08-545 LAWSON, BRYANT, ET AL. V. BERETTA U.S.A. CORP., ET AL.

In this particular Order, they just happen to be listed right under the heading, "CERTIORARI DENIED."

You can then cross check under, "Opinions --> Opinions Relating to Orders," to see if an actual published denial has been filed. It's rare this happens, but occasionally you will see it. Not however, in this case.

It was a simple Cert. Denied, which lets stand the Circuit decisions.