DC v Beretta: Dismissed!

The judge, it seems, was none too happy about the outcome, but felt that it was dictated by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

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.

Of course, the legislation doesn't protect "profits"; it just protects the manufacturers from liability. If the DC Council is right about the social value of firearms, then surely no one would want to buy a firearm and all the manufacturers will shortly go out of business.

This particular case is as close to a slam dunk as we are likely to see from the POLCIAA. I'm not surprised by the outcome. Any judge with a minimal respect for the law would be compelled to find similarly.

Posted on 2006-05-23 18:23:04.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7063

No trackbacks have been posted so far.

No comments have been posted so far.