Another victory for gun manufacturers

[News Shooter]

Appeals court tosses out NYC lawsuit against gun industry

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer


NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal appeals court has thrown out New York City's lawsuit claiming the gun industry sells firearms with the knowledge that they can be diverted into illegal markets.

It is one of several suits that cities have filed against gun makers.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities.

The lawsuit said the industry violated public nuisance law by allowing widespread access to illegal firearms.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
[Get Copyright Permissions]Click here for copyright permissions!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GUN_LAWSUITS_NEW_YORK?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

 

[JonJ]

 

[drgrant]

BooB-Berg =

The SOUND of FAILURE

 

[pipmaster1971]

Good Grief!!!

What next. Knife manufactures sued for the same reason? Match manufacturers? Balaclava manufacturers? Little plastic baggie manufacturers?

Bloomberg = Idiot

Bloomberg [Bl-oom-berg]
–noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

 

[Scrivener]

YES! This is quite an achievement.

The New York circuit was chosen because it is THE "business circuit" of the entire system. To have the lawsuit thrown out by the gun-grabbers' circuit of choice bodes well for how other circuits will decide other such vampire lawsuits.

 

[Yelena]

Why not sue pharmacological companies for selling narcotics with the knowledge that they can be diverted into illegal markets?

 

[rwl1955]

Lawsuits

YES! This is quite an achievement.

The New York circuit was chosen because it is THE "business circuit" of the entire system. To have the lawsuit thrown out by the gun-grabbers' circuit of choice bodes well for how other circuits will decide other such vampire lawsuits.

*******
Can the gun manufacturers sue Bloomberg for legal fees that they spent defending themselves against his frivolous lawsuits?

 

[Jay G]

*******
Can the gun manufacturers sue Bloomberg for legal fees that they spent defending themselves against his frivolous lawsuits?

Doubtful. If I were a betting man, I'd guess that the intent was never to win, but to cost the gun manufacturers big $$$.

Remember, Bloomberg's playing with our tax dollars. The gun manufacturers have to put up their own dough-rey-me, which means that the price of guns go up.

Price goes up, fewer guns sell, more smaller manufacturers go out of business.

Game. Set. Match.

Bloomberg won even though he lost. America. What a country.

 

[jcr]

Hey!

Bloomberg continued this lawsuit. He supports it completely, but....

It was Mayor Rudi Giuliani and his office that initiated this lawsuit years ago. I believe it spent a bunch of time in the Brooklyn Federal Court of Judge Weinstein who helped it along.

And yes, the stated reason for all the cities gun lawsuits was to sue the manufacturers out of business -- either by the poor luck of just one bad judgement, or by the "thousand cuts" of many lawsuits. I think they got to about 3 dozen before they started to get shot down.

 

[Carguy]

Bloomberg should be the poster child for "successful Bostonian Politicians"...idiot! (In case you didn't know he's from Medford)

 

[goodoldxelos]

well it may be appealed to the US Supreme court... the difference between firearms and such things as matches and little plastic baggies (which by the way their is a reason those pictures of the choking babies is on them) is because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile. I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. I don't believe in handgun bans in cities... and i have an LTC ALP so im def not against guns.

-Instead of making mass amounts of firearms why not make them as they are demanded. A somewhat market problem but a system could be implemented where you might have to wait a few days in which your background check could be investigated.

-Relax and make expections for privacy protection laws for persons applying for firearms permits and make a more vigorous process. (People with chronic mental health problems)

 

[dwarven1]

well it may be appealed to the US Supreme court... the difference between firearms and such things as matches and little plastic baggies (which by the way their is a reason those pictures of the choking babies is on them) is because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile. I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. I don't believe in handgun bans in cities... and i have an LTC ALP so im def not against guns.

So from the two statements in bold above, you believe that GLOCK is somehow responsible for a gangbanger stealing a G19, not the banger? You believe that you, as a supposed gun owner, are NOT responsible for any shot you fire from a handgun that injures someone, perhaps?

Look, Mr Rosenthal, please just go away. I'm getting tired of all the crap that people like you post. And just because you CLAIM to have an LTC - sort of like how John Kerry CLAIMS to be a hunter - doesn't mean that I'll believe it unless I see it.

Oh, and I fixed your statement of purpose for a firearm. It fires a projectile. Period. End of sentence. It's only "deadly" if it kills someone. You know - sort of like a car is only deadly if it runs someone down?

 

[Scrivener]

Sounds like an AHSA shill.....

Are you truly that ignorant of existing laws, or just desperately hoping we are?

 

[tele_mark]

To the lurking anti's --

What now BITCHES?!?!?!

 

[drgrant]

well it may be appealed to the US Supreme court... the difference between firearms and such things as matches and little plastic baggies (which by the way their is a reason those pictures of the choking babies is on them) is because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile. I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. I don't believe in handgun bans in cities... and i have an LTC ALP so im def not against guns.

-Instead of making mass amounts of firearms why not make them as they are demanded. A somewhat market problem but a system could be implemented where you might have to wait a few days in which your background check could be investigated.

-Relax and make expections for privacy protection laws for persons applying for firearms permits and make a more vigorous process. (People with chronic mental health problems)

I give this a out of 5 possible.

-Mike

 

[Yelena]

because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile.

It does not mean that this projectile will be aimed at a good person. Guns are used for hunting and recreation a lot more than for protection. Even if you have a gun primarily for self-defense, you may never have to use it.

I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability...

I think manufacturers should be only responsible for making good-quality, reliable, easy-to-use products and usable manuals for them, and for selling those products to appropriate distributors.
Imagine this: since many medications used for anesthesia and pain control go to illegal markets, we try to make pharmaceutical companies responsible for it. I'm afraid, that will raise the prices and make the meds simply inavailible for those who need them, because of too many regulations, precautions, etc. However, illegal markets will have them anyways. In both cases, there is only one solution: eliminate illegal users, period.

Agree about privacy protection and waiting period, BTW.

 

[fubar]

I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. ......
-........

They are. They go to dealers and or people who are allowed to buy & own firearms.

but a system could be implemented where you might have to wait a few days in which your background check could be investigated.

Investigate the investigation ? ... Huh ? How about :The right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed ? There's a gun law most sane Americans agree with.

 

[goodoldxelos]

So from the two statements in bold above, you believe that GLOCK is somehow responsible for a gangbanger stealing a G19, not the banger? You believe that you, as a supposed gun owner, are NOT responsible for any shot you fire from a handgun that injures someone, perhaps?

Look, Mr Rosenthal, please just go away. I'm getting tired of all the crap that people like you post. And just because you CLAIM to have an LTC - sort of like how John Kerry CLAIMS to be a hunter - doesn't mean that I'll believe it unless I see it.

Oh, and I fixed your statement of purpose for a firearm. It fires a projectile. Period. End of sentence. It's only "deadly" if it kills someone. You know - sort of like a car is only deadly if it runs someone down?

I didn't read the case first of all (and really dont care too, there is more interesting cases like DC v. Heller), and no the manufacturer shouldn't be responsible for a gang banger stealing a glock. The firearms manufacturers should be responsible as to the first hand they go to. The second hand person should make reasonable measures to prevent theft. The gangbanger will be held accountable, hes in possession of a handgun illegally, and that it is also stolen.

I could care less what you believe and what you don't, apparently not many people you have met have integrity.

You have ignored every other part of my post as to regards to solutions. All you come here to do is rant and rave yet you provide no viable solution to things like high crime rates in urban areas.

As for the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, yes but all rights are not without restrictions as free speech ie. perjury, slander...

 

[Scrivener]

The firearms manufacturers should be responsible as to the first hand they go to.

News (to you) flash: THEY ARE!

Manufacturers must:

1. First obtain a Federal (and, often, a state) license;

2. Number each FRAME with a unique serial number;

3. Account for each frame; and

4. Can only release a frame or complete gun to a duly licensed entity, usually a distributor, who sells to another duly licensed entity, a retailer, who then sells the frame or gun in accordance with Federal and state laws.

Or hadn't you noticed?

As for the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, yes but all rights are not without restrictions as free speech ie. perjury, slander...

More specious "reasoning." What you incorrectly describe as "restrictions" are actually penalties for abuse of those freedoms; NOT a priori limitations on them.

Grasp the distinction.

 

[tele_mark]

 

[dwarven1]

Imagine this: since many medications used for anesthesia and pain control go to illegal markets, we try to make pharmaceutical companies responsible for it. I'm afraid, that will raise the prices and make the meds simply inavailible for those who need them, because of too many regulations, precautions, etc. However, illegal markets will have them anyways. In both cases, there is only one solution: eliminate illegal users, period.

Which is exactly the goal of the gun-banners.

I didn't read the case first of all (and really dont care too, there is more interesting cases like DC v. Heller), and no the manufacturer shouldn't be responsible for a gang banger stealing a glock. The firearms manufacturers should be responsible as to the first hand they go to. The second hand person should make reasonable measures to prevent theft. The gangbanger will be held accountable, hes in possession of a handgun illegally, and that it is also stolen.

I could care less what you believe and what you don't, apparently not many people you have met have integrity.

You have ignored every other part of my post as to regards to solutions. All you come here to do is rant and rave yet you provide no viable solution to things like high crime rates in urban areas.

As for the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, yes but all rights are not without restrictions as free speech ie. perjury, slander...

Oh, dear me... did I strike a nerve?

As for your first point, please see your quote below and tell me where I misinterpreted it. As for ignoring your call for solutions... well, you didn't ask. And I've certainly made my position clear in previous posts. Enforce the laws against assault, murder, rape, etc, put the perpetrators in prison, and LEAVE THEM THERE for the duration of their term. It worked well in the 90's, it should work well now.

Your suggestions are classic "solutions" that the Brady Bunch, AHSA, etc, want to see implemented because they limit the availability of guns to ALL people and do NOTHING to fight crime.

Build on demand? That's merely fancy talk for a waiting period. Not to mention it would drive the cost of purchasing a gun well beyond many people's means.

Waiting period? Tell that to the woman who's ex is threatening her, or the shopkeeper faced with mass riots when he needs to defend his livelihood (Remember the LA riots)?

As for restrictions... Good grief, here we go again. Sir, in order to exercise your right to post your gun-banning suggestions on the Internet, you must go to your local police department and pay $100 for a License To Post. There are two classes: A and B. B only lets you post on non-controversial subjects like cooking and gardening. A lets you post on all subjects, but only if your COP finds you to be a "suitable" person. If at any time your COP deems you unsuitable - for ANY REASON - your License to Post will be revoked and your computer confiscated.

You need to submit your fingerprints, two references and your REASON for wanting to post. The COP shall issue your LTP or deny you your LTP no less than 40 days later, but there is no penalty for him not doing so. It may take you up to 9 months. If he denies you your LTP, you do NOT get your $100 back. And your LTP is only good for 6 years.

Those sound like reasonable restrictions to YOU???

Ross

well it may be appealed to the US Supreme court... the difference between firearms and such things as matches and little plastic baggies (which by the way their is a reason those pictures of the choking babies is on them) is because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile. I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. I don't believe in handgun bans in cities... and i have an LTC ALP so im def not against guns.

-Instead of making mass amounts of firearms why not make them as they are demanded. A somewhat market problem but a system could be implemented where you might have to wait a few days in which your background check could be investigated.

-Relax and make expections for privacy protection laws for persons applying for firearms permits and make a more vigorous process. (People with chronic mental health problems)

 

[KMaurer]

well it may be appealed to the US Supreme court... the difference between firearms and such things as matches and little plastic baggies (which by the way their is a reason those pictures of the choking babies is on them) is because firearms primary purpose is to propel a deadly projectile. I do think gun manufacturers should be responsible as to where the firearms go, in particular handguns because of their conceal-ability. I don't believe in handgun bans in cities... and i have an LTC ALP so im def not against guns.

-Instead of making mass amounts of firearms why not make them as they are demanded. A somewhat market problem but a system could be implemented where you might have to wait a few days in which your background check could be investigated.

-Relax and make expections for privacy protection laws for persons applying for firearms permits and make a more vigorous process. (People with chronic mental health problems)

Having an LTC ALP proves absolutely nothing about one's attitudes toward guns; I'm sure that John Rosenthal has one, and the executive director of the Brady Campaign has an FFL. The primary purpose of an automobile is to propel a ton or so of metal, glass, plastic and assorted other materials at speeds that make it several orders of magnitude more deadly. Should automobile manufacturers be liable for cars the sell, which are then resold without their knowledge to a third party, then stolen by a fourth party who lends it to his brother, who in turn gets drunk and crashes it into a school bus? If not, why not?

Instead of simply mass producing cars, manufacturers could supply dealers with pictures of new models, and customers could review the pictures and lists of options, then order exactly the car they want, which would then be produced and delivered. You can do it that way now, and I suspect that if everyone were to do (or be forced to do) it the cost wouldn't increase more than 50-75%. After all, mass production and economies of scale are simply myths perpetuated by economists, industrial engineers and other toadies of the car lobby.

And finally since we know that the overwhelming majority of all illegal uses of firearms are done by people who wouldn't pass the existing licensing standards and never bother to make the effort, let's find ways to make the process even more onerous, expensive and humiliating for those who attempt to comply with the laws. Perhaps we could require that their names be published in the newspapers and other media several months before their license is granted (or not), in order to allow hoplophobic neighbors to provide anonymous input into the decision process. We might also want to require periodic mandatory drug testing, psychiatric examinations and routine warrantless examination of their homes and other property for anything that might suggest their unfitness, all performed at their expense, of course.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Ken

 

[Martlet]

I have a solution. Free access to firearms and the Castle Doctrine. That will help to reduce crime for a good many of us.

 

[Garys]

Any chance of someone making an emoticon for "This guy's a tool" ?

Gary

 

[Riverside]

I could care less what you believe and what you don't, apparently not many people you have met have integrity....

If what you say is true, why are you in this forum?
There's a bold new concept in reducing high crime rates in urban areas:
Put the convicted criminal in jail for the full term of their sentence. Keep the criminals locked up and the rest of us can live in peace.

"As for the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, yes but all rights are not without restrictions as free speech ie. perjury, slander.......

This suggests that you think it's Ok to gag everyone just in case someone lies.

It's time for the song:
This poor little sheep has lost it's way!
Baa. Baaa. Baaaa.
Best Regards.

 

[gws1063]

You have ignored every other part of my post as to regards to solutions. All you come here to do is rant and rave yet you provide no viable solution to things like high crime rates in urban areas.

OK, lets take a look at a typical example of urban crime and see how well your solutions work. (BTW, this is a true story and the victim was my daughter's co-worker.)

In the greater DC area, a 25 YO woman was returning to her apartment complex late at night and was walking from her car to the building door. She was confronted by a 25 YO male who was brandishing a handgun. She had time to yell "Get away from me . . . No!" before he shot and killed her (single round to the head). Two days later the perp was arrested based on reports from "concerned citizens" (AKA, the witnesses who didn't even call 911 to report the crime or get medical assistance for the victim).

Background on perp: Arrested (along with an accomplice) at age 17 after a series of robberies. Charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder, six counts of armed robbery and three counts of first-degree assault. (It was only attempted murder since none of the victims died in spite of the slit throats.) Before trial, plea bargained to two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted robbery: possible sentence of 63 years. Judge sentenced him to 60 years and immediately suspended all but 12. After serving four years, his sentence was reconsidered and two extra years were suspended. After serving just short of seven years, he was parolled in November of 2006. No word on what occupied his time between 11/06 and 4/08, but I doubt any time was spent in a classroom, and I'm sure none of it was spent waiting for a background check on the purchase of his .40 or getting an LTC.

-Gary

 

[kevin9]

Any chance of someone making an emoticon for "This guy's a tool" ?

Gary

Here ya go.

 

[TomH]

+1

 

[goodoldxelos]

News (to you) flash: THEY ARE!

Manufacturers must:

1. First obtain a Federal (and, often, a state) license;

2. Number each FRAME with a unique serial number;

3. Account for each frame; and

4. Can only release a frame or complete gun to a duly licensed entity, usually a distributor, who sells to another duly licensed entity, a retailer, who then sells the frame or gun in accordance with Federal and state laws.

Or hadn't you noticed?




More specious "reasoning." What you incorrectly describe as "restrictions" are actually penalties for abuse of those freedoms; NOT a priori limitations on them.

Grasp the distinction.

A) Who cares about the first part i already said its fine as long as their are responsible, just because their are laws and agencies doesn't mean corporations don't do things to make profits outside the law.

B) Restrictions or penalties, technically both apply, you are restricted from say slander but you are free to disobey the restriction and thus ensue penalties.

 

[06LemansC6]

I guess it's true........You really can wear your ass as a hat.