Mayor Daley seeks suit against firearms industry in International Court of Justice

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
According to Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy, Mayor Daley and a dozen mayors from cities around the world will now attempt to continue their campaign of bankrupting the firearms industry though litigation in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Joining Mayor Daley is Philadeplhia Mayor Michael Nutter and the Mayor of Mexico City.

Legally, it appears to be a fairly murky area regarding what kind of effect it might have. While it appears unlikely to have a strong effect on U.S. law, firearms industry based overseas in less hospitable legal environments (FN, Beretta, etc.) could be looking at some problems.

In any case, it appears that Daley is willing to fight this down to the last dime of Chicago taxpayer's money - either in the United States (where his $433 million suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court) or in international courts.
 
Do people realize how much he is spending?

Honestly though, if unfortunately some gun makers in European countries have to go through with that would it be feasible for them to open up here? :D

I really do wonder what the legal ramifications of American companies, if any, there are.
 
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter also endorsed a World Court case, because “I love the 2nd Amendment,” but “I have a 1st Amendment right not to be shot.”
Click to expand...
Um, no. There's lots of stuff in the 1st Amendment, but I don't recall, under any interpretation, seeing that.

Even if the ICJ heard the case, and even if Bloomberg and company won, who would agree to enforce the verdict? This is a publicity stunt, pure and simple. It's a waste of taxpayer time and money.

...which is thankfully the best the gun-control lobby seems to do lately.
 
Hopefully his last hurrah before he goes down the swirly drain of history and becomes a bookmark reserved for people who deserve no fame or recognition.
 
Who has standing to go to that court? Governments or people. I vaguely remember that no government entity except the Feds can engage foreign governmental entities.

Just curious and ignorant of this nuance.
 
Just curious

Heard a blurb on the radio news recently, about all the shootings in Chicago, and how the Mayor was in favor of stronger gun control laws. And I was just wondering, how much stronger than "you can't legally have one" can a law get?

As to the international courts, as mentioned, I wonder what legal standing the good Mayor has. For the US Supreme court, one can only bring a case if one is affected by the law. For example, we had to wait until a DC resident got his case to the Supreme court, for them to rule on the DC law.

Most of the foreign arms makers that sell in the US do have a US based company (subsidiary), so again, I wonder what jurisdiction any foreign (international) court would have?

Its just too bad for us that so many of our mayors and other politicians are willing to spend so much of our tax money (sorely needed elsewhere) on gun control schemes, rather than facing (and God forbid, actually doing something) and the real cause of the trouble, which is people breaking existing laws (like the ones that prohibit shooting people for fun and proft!).
 
Good point, Dr. Meyer... you can feign ignorance if you must, but according to Wikipedia, your vague memory is quite correct:

"In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organisations. This does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in case of "diplomatic protection", bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations."
(My emphasis)

So an actual IJC suit isn't going to happen... but I suppose Mr. Daley and the rest of this bunch of mayors will get political mileage out of posturing about one... :rolleyes:
 
So an actual IJC suit isn't going to happen... but I suppose Mr. Daley and the rest of this bunch of mayors will get political mileage out of posturing about one.
Click to expand...

And the part that gets my goat, is the taxpayers are on the hook for the entire expense of the mileage.
Too bad they have no recourse short of the ballot box.
 
Daley is off his cotton pickin' rocker!!! He don't have a problem, in his city with gun violence since his population ain't got no stinkin' guns!!!:p

Brent
 
Who has standing to go to that court? Governments or people.
Click to expand...

On standing, the State would either have to consent to the jurisdiction. Typically this would be by the nation asking the ICJ to hear the case or by signing a treaty giving the ICJ jurisdiction. It can also be done by general declaration. In the past, Reagan used his executive power to issue a general declaration to remove the United States from ICJ jurisdiction in a case. Whether it would work the other way (to submit the U.S. to ICJ jurisdiction based solely on executive declaration) I am more skpetical about.

The other thing the ICJ can do is issue an advisory opinion. This is not legally binding; but may be looked to by some courts, particularly European ones, as a clear statement of international law. Various UN agencies have received IJC advisory opinions in the past, so I would guess that would be the most likely route for Mayor Daley to attempt it.

The cynical side of me thinks the primary purpose of this is to move money from the pockets of Chicago taxpayers to various law firms/Daley cronies so it can be returned as donations (minus the cut of course) to various politicians later. I'm skeptical that Mayor Daley is really interested in making this a political issue at this time in his party's history.
 
Well, can I call them! Thanks for the info, folks!

What a doofus - with all Chicago's problem, to waste time and money on this. The cause of their gun crimes is the typical lack of economic opportunity and educational failure leading to cultural problems and crime as an outlet and money generator.

What else is new? Just posturing.

It's the equivalent of Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on American Sex life or the current Iranian cleric saying earthquakes are caused by clevage displays.
 
What a doofus - with all Chicago's problem, to waste time and money on this. The cause of their gun crimes is the typical lack of economic opportunity and educational failure leading to cultural problems and crime as an outlet and money generator.
Click to expand...
I've always argued that one of the reasons gun control is such an easy shill is that it makes for a snappier, more concise soundbite than all that.

For example: a young man is gunned down while walking from bible study to read books to elderly blind folks. Never mind that he's wearing gang colors, people look to politicians for reassurance and solutions.

An honest politician would say that we need to work on the causes of crime that you mentioned, but there's no way to couch it in a crowd-pleasing, single-sentence utterance for the cameras.

Instead, said politician shouts, "we've got to get these guns off the streets!" and the crowd goes wild. See? Easy!

Never mind that gun control is a violation of the Constitution, or that it's been proven to be a deficient social policy. What's important is that the masses have been fed an easy answer and the politician looks like he's "getting tough on crime."

(Boy, am I sounding cynical today.)
 
This has nothing to do with gun control. This is simply corrupt politicians using taxpayer money to supplement their reelection campaigns. He's playing to the liberal anti-gun electorate, and they're too stupid to realize that he's using their money to do it.
 
Heard a blurb on the radio news recently, about all the shootings in Chicago, and how the Mayor was in favor of stronger gun control laws. And I was just wondering, how much stronger than "you can't legally have one" can a law get?
Click to expand...

Were it possible, I'm sure that "mayor" would have NRA members sent to prison.
 
44 AMP said:
"...how much stronger than "you can't legally have one" can a law get?"
Click to expand...
Heh...it can always get worse! ;)

Daley can go about outlawing the sale or possession of ammunition.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the right of the people to buy ammunition shall not be infringed...

Don't underestimate your enemies - especially when they have large amounts of taxpayer dollars at their disposal.....
 
Daley is trying to avoid responsibility for his ineffectual "mayoring" and get a nice trip to Europe in the deal.

I would guess, with the murder rate (139 year to date, pushing 35 a month) he is getting some heat and questions he cannot answer without admitting himself a fool and liar. The ban isn't working and even the dullest of watchers has to see this. Last gamble to hide from his failure.

Summer is coming, Chi will get hot, time for a trip and some R+R. With his armed security detail, of course. Even European gun controls are not enough to keep his slimey rear safe.
 
Who has standing to go to that court? Governments or people. I vaguely remember that no government entity except the Feds can engage foreign governmental entities.
Click to expand...
I'm curious about this too, especially in light of the text of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power...
Click to expand...
This restriction superficially only restricts states, not local governments, but AFAIK most modern Supreme Court cases have held local governments to the same standards as state governments.
Daley can go about outlawing the sale or possession of ammunition.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the right of the people to buy ammunition shall not be infringed...
Click to expand...
OTOH it has been long established that government entities can't enact "back door" restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights by enacting bad-faith restrictions on items necessary for the practice of those rights; to use the classic example, the government can't stop unfriendly newspaper coverage by banning newsprint for "public health" reasons, using the excuse that someone might choke on it or someone might start a fire with it. :rolleyes:

IMHO banning ammunition is a significant and obvious bad-faith restriction on one's ability to "bear arms" and should not stand up in court. OTOH we may have to wait for a future SCOTUS case to settle this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top