A superior court judge in Washington, D.C. ruled earlier this week that a law suit filed by the D.C. government against gun manufacturers could not proceed due to a recent federal law banning such suits:
In a 37-page opinion, Judge Brook Hedge wrote that the city and the federal government had two competing policies, and only one could prevail.
The D.C. Council, she wrote, had determined that assault weapons have "little or no social benefit but at the same time pernicious consequences for the health and safety of District residents and visitors." Congress, however, "has trumped local law by passing legislation to protect the profits of such manufacturers," she wrote.
The suit, filed by the city and by victims of gun violence and their families, aimed to hold gun manufacturers liable for the flow of firearms into the District and for the carnage created by the sale of illegal weapons.
Without question, the suits against gun manufacturers make no sense; they attempt to hold the wrong people accountable for gun violence, and they are mainly motivated by greed on the part of cities and trial lawyers. So, dismissal of the D.C. suit is welcome, in and of itself.
But gun manufacturers, and businesses generally, should resist the temptation of using federal law to protect themselves against state and local foolishness. Such interventions are not only inconsistent with what the Commerce Clause should mean; they are another step down the slippery slope of federal regulation of everything. Congress will not always be sympathetic to gun owners. The next one might not only take back the current law but add federal lawsuits to the fire. And the potential for mischief in other areas is huge. The right position is to oppose all federal instrusion, even if such intrusion seems helpful in the short term.
Comments