Jury verdict in NAACP gun case


PDA






Dannyboy
May 14, 2003, 04:43 PM
Just saw on FOX news that the jury in the NAACP gun case found in favor of the manufacturers and something like 60 individuals. I'm working on a school paper and just caught a bit of the report.

If you enjoyed reading about "Jury verdict in NAACP gun case" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FPrice
May 14, 2003, 05:10 PM
msnbc.com had a blurb that the gun industry has won the NAACP case, but no follow-up...yet.

Preacherman
May 14, 2003, 05:16 PM
From ABCNews.com (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030514_1298.html):

Jury: Gun Industry Not Cause of Violence

Jury Says 45 Gun Makers and Distributors Not to Blame for Violence in Minority Marketing

The Associated Press

NEW YORK May 14 —

In a victory for the gun industry, a jury found Wednesday that 45 handgun manufacturers and distributors were not responsible for fueling violence in minority communities through their marketing practices.

The jury deliberated for five days before reaching its verdict in a closely watched case that now goes to the judge for a final decision. The panel was unable to reach a verdict regarding 23 other defendants in the case.

Because U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role, both sides in the case will submit written arguments interpreting the verdict within 30 days. The judge will then make the final determination on liability and remedy.

The verdict followed more than five weeks of testimony in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's lawsuit against 68 defendants, including Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock Inc. and other major gun makers and distributors.

The jury found Glock and Colt Manufacturing two major gun makers not liable. It did not reach a decision on Smith & Wesson.

The NAACP lawsuit alleged the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying their products to criminals in minority communities, and did nothing to stop it. Rather than monetary damages, it sought to force distributors to restrict sales to dealers who have storefront outlets, prohibit sales to gun show dealers and limit individual purchasers to one handgun a month.

The defendants and industry trade groups argued that it was unfair and unlawful to hold manufacturers liable for the criminal use of a legal product. They also said that legislatures not courts should set standards for sales.

CZ-75
May 14, 2003, 05:20 PM
Because U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role, both sides in the case will submit written arguments interpreting the verdict within 30 days. The judge will then make the final determination on liability and remedy.

Wanna see some judicial jury nullification?

The jury found Glock and Colt Manufacturing two major gun makers not liable. It did not reach a decision on Smith & Wesson.

Fat lot of good their agreement did them in staying out of lawsuits.

Standing Wolf
May 14, 2003, 07:36 PM
...U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role...

Could someone explain that, please?

rock jock
May 14, 2003, 07:38 PM
That means if the judge is prejudicial against the verdict, he can seek to ignore their findings.

Boats
May 14, 2003, 08:11 PM
They don't call Judge Weinstein "Reversible Jack" for nothing.:rolleyes:

Grin&Barrett
May 14, 2003, 08:12 PM
I always thought it was stretching PC

But Hey.....when you are used to feeding at the public trough it's always good to find a new free tit to suck.

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Fox News

NEW YORK — A New York jury doesn't blame gun manufacturers for crimes committed with weapons they made.

Now, a judge will decide whether to throw out a lawsuit filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (search).

A federal jury ruled Wednesday after five days of deliberations that 45 handgun manufacturers and distributors were not guilty of marketing their guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The panel could not reach a verdict regarding 23 other defendants.

The case marks a major victory for the gun industry, which has been called to the carpet for making a product that has been frequently misused. Gun manufacturers argue they are making a legal product.

For five weeks Glock and Colt Manufacturing (search), among others, defended themselves against a lawsuit brought by the NAACP that alleged the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were handing out their products to criminals in minority communities and let it happen without interruption.

Rather than a monetary penalty, the NAACP wants to force distributors to restrict sales to dealers who have storefront outlets, prohibit sales to gun show dealers and limit individual purchasers to one handgun a month.

Gun makers say unsuccessful cases brought in New York, Cincinnati, Boston, Philadelphia, and Miami-Dade County, demonstrate that "anti-gun zealots" are trying to make an "end-run" around Congress to change the laws on the sales of guns.

"We welcome the advisory jury's common sense finding that the manufacturers and distributors of firearms are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products," Lawrence G. Keane, vice president and general counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation (search), said in a written statement.

"This verdict is the latest in an ongoing series of complete defeats for radical, anti-gun groups that have attempted to use the courtroom for an end-run around the legislative process and impose changes to gun laws that federal and state legislators have roundly rejected.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein could take it upon himself to throw out the ruling. The panel's role was solely advisory. Weinstein will ask the plaintiff and defendants to submit within 30 days their written interpretations of the verdict before deciding on any liabilities or remedies.

The verdict did not determine whether Smith & Wesson Corp. (search) would get off the hook.

DonP
May 14, 2003, 08:17 PM
He'll be reversed on appeal if he does.

I'm really pleasantly shocked that a jury of citizens heard and believed the truth after all the propaganda they have been fed over the years about how evil guns and gun maufacturers are.

No matter where it goes from here, "Kweisi and Company" have been handed their hats for a change. Golf clap for an honest jury! There may be hope for this system yet.

Don P.

Geech
May 14, 2003, 08:23 PM
Let's hope the judge doesn't get delusions of grandeur.

Brett Bellmore
May 14, 2003, 08:27 PM
Seventh amendment:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Yeah, I have a bit of trouble with the concept of "advisory juries" myself. I'm assuming that there was more than twenty bucks at stake, right? :rolleyes:

Jim March
May 14, 2003, 08:44 PM
Didja all hear about the porn company executive on trial for obscenity?

He was hoping for a hung jury.




:neener:

4v50 Gary
May 14, 2003, 08:47 PM
Those lawsuits aren't meant to win by court or jury decision. They're meant to harass the maker such that the expense of doing business is unfeasible. It's an abuse of the legal process.

cuchulainn
May 14, 2003, 11:26 PM
Gotta love the Guns & Ammo headline tonight: Firearm Industry Wins Major Victory With Common-Sense Verdict In NAACP Case Common Sense. Hee hee hee.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/naacp_0514/

Jeff OTMG
May 14, 2003, 11:29 PM
I would LOVE to see a class action lawsuit brought by the manufacturers and the NSSF against the NAACP. Then earmark the punitive damages to promote pro-gun legislation. I no longer support any group supporting the NAACP. A number of people attempt to collect money at intersections here in Indy to support black causes. I ask them if they are members of the NAACP and if they are I don't give them any money. Before doing business with any black owned business I ask if any of the proceeds support the NAACP. The contractor working on my house is a black business owner and employs blacks. He also does work with Habitat for Humanity, in fact the stuff he is pulling from my house will be used for HH homes, but he does not support the work of the NAACP.

jimpeel
May 14, 2003, 11:44 PM
The NAACP lawsuit alleged the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying their products to criminals in minority communities, and did nothing to stop it.Shouldn't the target of their lawsuit be the federal government, the Treasury Department, and the BATF? They are the ones who approve, monitor, and control these "corrupt dealers"; not the firearms manufacturers. They simply sell their lawful goods to those who the government has deemed worthy of receiving them.

WyldOne
May 15, 2003, 05:02 PM
Well, that's pleasantly surprising. :)

I'm puzzled about the whole thing with S&W, though. I wonder what that's about?

I have a question, though. What if, hypothetically speaking, a gun manufacturer was actually guilty in this business of selling to bad dealers or whatever? Keep in mind, I don't actually believe this, but I'm curious how it would play out.

George Dickel
May 15, 2003, 05:53 PM
When I had my FFL I bought my guns from a wholesaler. Do gun manufacturers sell directly to dealers?

Geech
May 15, 2003, 06:36 PM
Yeah, I have a bit of trouble with the concept of "advisory juries" myself. I'm assuming that there was more than twenty bucks at stake, right?

That right there might be why the advisory role worked. In the suit, the NAACP wasn't asking for monetary damages but court-enforced changes.

cuchulainn
May 15, 2003, 06:43 PM
I have a question, though. What if, hypothetically speaking, a gun manufacturer was actually guilty in this business of selling to bad dealers or whatever? Keep in mind, I don't actually believe this, but I'm curious how it would play out. What if Ford knowingly sold to dealer that Ford knew sold cars to known drunk drivers?

Brett Bellmore
May 15, 2003, 08:27 PM
It's an interesting thought, Geech; That if somebody sues you for $30 you'd have the right to a real jury trial, but if they sued you demanding that you spend the rest of your life standing on your head, you're out of luck. Somehow I don't think that Madison intended the Seventh amendment to be read that way...

If you enjoyed reading about "Jury verdict in NAACP gun case" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!