« Pictures from the McDonald v. Chicago argument | Main | Starbucks and the Supreme Court »
Interesting article on an aspect of the Tiahrt Amendment
I knew that the Amendment bans release of gun trace data to cities seeking to sue firearms dealers, but I didn't know that it also declares any such data admissible in evidence. This article argues that the latter restriction, as applied to State courts, is unconstitutional. I wonder, however, whether the fact that the restriction pertains to data originating in Federal investigations, with an allegation that its release might compromise those investigations, doesn't make this more of a "necessary and proper clause" case than a commerce clause case.
Comments
I think you have a type with the word "admissible."
Posted by: Eric at March 7, 2010 04:03 PM
Dang. And I have a typO with the word typE. aaack.
Posted by: Eric at March 7, 2010 04:03 PM
Eric...LMAO Your in for post of the year!!
Posted by: 5thofNov at March 7, 2010 08:15 PM
I find his characterization that Chicago sued Beretta "in an effort to stem the rising tide of gun violence" to be, at best, misstated.
What we had, rather, is an effort made up of equal parts political grand-standing and legal fortune-seeking, that was quite properly cut off at the knees. There was never any reasonable expectation that the lawsuits, had they proceeded, would have reduced crime. The only conceivable outcome would have been to 1, cripple or destroy the gun industry, 2, to help anti-gun politicians get re-elected in anti-gun districts, and 3, to help a handful of opportunistic lawyers get rich.
So when I hear a lawyer talking about how the Tiahrt Amendment is preventing cities from properly proceeding with these nuisance lawsuits, what I hear is a lawyer whining about how Congress has ruined his chances at a share of a gun-industry equivalent of the tobacco settlements.
Posted by: Jeff Dege at March 8, 2010 03:45 PM
Jeff,
Thanks for the comment. I don't take a position on the true motives behind Chicago's lawsuit or the propriety of the Tiahrt Amendment. In terms of the Commerce Clause analysis, the only issue is that Chicago claims that it is using such lawsuits to prevent crime. And, as Lopez and Morrison held, Congress is not in a position to override that stated attempt, unless the activity regulated falls under one of the three Lopez categories. The Tiahrt Amendment could be harmful or beneficial to law enforcement. I am merely claiming that it is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Colin Miller at March 8, 2010 06:50 PM