 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia v. Beretta4/21/2005
efine more narrowly the disputed facts and issues. Following the simple guide of [Fed. R. Civ. P.] Rule 8 (f) that "all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice," we have no doubt that [plaintiffs'] complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the [defendants] fair notice of its basis.
Id. at 47-48 (footnotes omitted). Although we are less certain in this case about the adequacy of the complaint under these principles, we likewise follow Rule 8 (f)'s command in holding that the plaintiffs have satisfied the pleading requirements of Rule 8. At the same time, however, if they are unable after discovery to tie a particular defendant to a particular injury-producing weapon, they will not be entitled to proceed under the Act against that defendant.
C. Constitutional Challenges
Acts of the legislature are presumptively valid, see Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984), and thus a court may invalidate an otherwise lawful enactment "only upon a plain showing that [the legislature] has exceeded its constitutional bounds." United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2002). Nevertheless, the defendants argue that the SLA violates both the Commerce Clause and due process principles applicable to the District through the Fifth Amendment. In essence their argument is that, by imposing strict liability on firearms manufacturers for conduct that is wholly lawful where it takes place - i.e., the lawful manufacture, production and distribution of firearms outside of the jurisdiction of the statute - the SLA impermissibly burdens the lawful interstate commerce of firearms and "arbitrarily" attempts to impose a regulatory scheme beyond the boundaries of the jurisdiction enacting it. We consider first the Commerce Clause argument, then the claim of violation of due process. Neither argument persuades us.
1. Commerce Clause
"Though phrased as a grant of regulatory power to Congress, the [Commerce] Clause has long been understood to have a 'negative' [or dormant] aspect that denies the States the power unjustifiably to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce." Oregon Waste Sys. v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93, 98 (1994); see District of Columbia v. Eastern Trans-Waste of Md., Inc., 758 A.2d 1, 16 (D.C. 2000). Of course, " egislation, in a great variety of ways, may affect commerce and persons engaged in it without constituting a regulation of it, within the meaning of the Constitution." Head v. New Mexico Bd. of Exam'rs in Optometry, 374 U.S. 424, 428 (1963) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, "the Constitution when conferring upon Congress the regulation of commerce, . . . never intended to cut the States off from legislating on all subjects relating to the health, life, and safety of their citizens, though the legislation might indirectly affect the commerce of the country." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the "two-tiered approach" adopted by the Supreme Court,
hen a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry. When, however, a statute has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, we have examined whether the tate's interest is legitimate and whether the 38 burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 (1986) (citations omitted).
The vice against which the first, or anti-discrimination, component of this test op
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|