Firearm and Tort Litigation - Research Paper Example

Harris Kamran Law Review Paper 15 July Firearm and Tort Litigation Tort litigation concerns with the cases against civil wrongdoing as opposed to criminal cases (USLegal, n.d.), and with such cases as can be taken up by a court of Law for processing and providing compensation for damages (USLegal, n.d.). These cases are personal in nature, concerned with the social rights and civil obligations of individuals as citizens of the state, and can often be covered under the Second Amendment of the Constitution (O’Connor, 2011).

The state is under a binding obligation to provide equal protection of law of rights as per the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, this protection spanning both the natural and the technical rights (O’Connor, 2011). The right to keep and bear arms is afforded by the Second Amendment, and is given Constitutional Protection since it enjoys the first-tier level of scrutiny (Equal Protection, 2011). Any attempt to infringe this right, as was the case in Bloomberg (City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp), should be considered a repealing of the Second Amendment, and, hence, unlawful.

Suing the arms suppliers and stores is a direct act of this infringement (Burch, 2006); making it difficult to purchase arms by levying a hefty permit fee in the state (O’Connor, 2011) is an indirect, yet equally unlawful act against the Constitution and civil rights of the citizens. Both acts aim to discourage the public from practicing their legal right of bearing arms, and the argument that this could somehow prevent the rampant criminal activities (Burch, 2006) is but weak; the infringement of social rights under Constitutional protection is itself a criminal activity, and to suppress one such act with another is a destabilization of the legal framework (Burch, 2006).

The need to protect this right by Law and through the involvement of the Court is well-founded and justifiable. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (GovTrack, 2005) is a valid response by the Congress for addressing the pertinent issue. It simply states that the manufacturers and dealers of arms cannot be held responsible for the misuse of their arms, and any action or litigation against them in this regard will be held as unlawful by the Court (GovTrack, 2005). It is a completely adequate Act; if dealers of any kind were to be held responsible for the misuse of their products, this should extend to the chemists who’s medicines might be used to commit suicide; to fast-foods for serving food that might cause unforeseen health problems in a customer; to car dealers because automobile accidents are a common occurrence.

Suffice it to say, in the absence of such an Act, the public peace and protection of social rights might be gravely disrupted. References (2005). Govrack: Protection of lawful commerce in arms act. Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-397 (2011). Equal protection_ Constitutional law. Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/6536/Equal-Protection-Constitutional-Law.html Burch, Steve. (2006). 21-gun lawsuit fired at Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=792 O’Connor, Anahad. (2011). Bloomberg is sued over city’s handgun permit fee.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyregion/06gun.html USLegal: Complex tort litigation law and legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/complex-tort-litigation/