Federalism and Gun Laws

Reason Contributing Editor Walter Olson writes:

My friendly argument with Michael Krauss over federalism
and gun litigation (he thinks the Constitution bars national
pre-emption, I don't) just began at PointOfLaw.com. I've
just posted my initial volley, and Michael tells me he'll
have a response ready to post this morning. We'll be
going through Thursday or Friday, exploring different aspects
of the issue.

Comments

[Shannon Love]

I don't think Krauss understands how just the possibility of a lawsuit damages a business.

Business must legally account for the possibility that they might be sued. The money they might have to pay out becomes a liability on their books. A change in the legal theory of liability can cause accountants to wipe millions off the worth of company even if only a few courts have upheld it.

In the years or decades it takes for all the states and the federal courts to kill this novel new theory hundreds of businesses could be wiped out.

I doubt Krauss would be so sanguine about the matter if a state court advanced a racially permissive theory of libel that opened up just the possibility that media companies could be sued into bankruptcy.

[Shannon Love]

I don't think Krauss understands how just the possibility of a lawsuit damages a business.

Business must legally account for the possibility that they might be sued. The money they might have to pay out becomes a liability on their books. A change in the legal theory of liability can cause accountants to wipe millions off the worth of company even if only a few courts have upheld it.

In the years or decades it takes for all the states and the federal courts to kill this novel new theory hundreds of businesses could be wiped out.

I doubt Krauss would be so sanguine about the matter if a state court advanced a racially permissive theory of libel that opened up just the possibility that media companies could be sued into bankruptcy.

[Shannon Love]

I don't think Krauss understands how just the possibility of a lawsuit damages a business.

Business must legally account for the possibility that they might be sued. The money they might have to pay out becomes a liability on their books. A change in the legal theory of liability can cause accountants to wipe millions off the worth of company even if only a few courts have upheld it.

In the years or decades it takes for all the states and the federal courts to kill this novel new theory hundreds of businesses could be wiped out.

I doubt Krauss would be so sanguine about the matter if a state court advanced a racially permissive theory of libel that opened up just the possibility that media companies could be sued into bankruptcy.

[Dave]

"Business must legally account for the possibility that they might be sued. The money they might have to pay out becomes a liability on their books."

If I remember accounting (and I may not), I believe this incorrectly states the effect of a possible lawsuit. Possible lawsuits, and even ongoing litigation, are reported in the notes of financial statements as contingent liabilities. No actual liability exists (no offset of assets) until a court renders a verdict or the parties reach a settlement.

[Ed Martin]

Instead of Walter Olson and Michael Krauss saying what they "think" the Constitution says, why don't they read it, then they'd know what it says. It's written in straightforward English and contrary to what the Supremes say, does not need an interpreter for those who speak English. Being literate, I've been able to read and understand it all on my own.

[John]

Martha may be queen bitch of the universe but you have to give her credit. Give her lemons and she makes lemonaide. She will get out of jail, off probation and be bigger than ever.