Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jul 3, 2019.
Suing the hotel for not providing proper vetting of guests?
The NYC case will be mooted. Plaintiffs have gotten everything they asked for via NYC rule changes and, more importantly, NY State legislation.
"Voluntary Cessation" no longer applies because the defendant, NYC, cant change the rules back after the case is mooted because of NY State legislation. NY state is not a party to the lawsuit.
Alan Beck, the attorney for Young v Hawaii, has commented extensively on the subject.
I watched an AM tv show that the lady bringing the suit stated, " I don't blame the shooter." I'll never understand the logic. I guess it's ok to purchase anything legally, take the purchased item and use it criminally then blame the item and it's manufacturer. Based on this logic there shouldn't be a car on the road. I could be wrong.
- because my lawyer says that I can't get any money from the shooter... .
Common sense indicates this makes no sense.
While there are plenty of mistakes by the local, state and federal authorities to blame, not placing most all of the blame on Cruz is ridiculous.
Only humans can be responsible for their actions, NOT inanimate objects.
I could sue a mattress manufacturer and hotel for a bad nights sleep, punitive damages for the deal I didn’t make the next day to and it’s effect on my career.
Find the right Judge/jury and...
You don’t need a “bump stock” to bump fire a semiauto
Why I didn’t like the ban in the bump stocks. Only an idiot thinks banning them stops the problem they had with them. Getting rid of all semiauto firearms is the only logical step if you want to eliminate the possibility of bump fire.
So is the NYC case officially dead at the SCOTUS level? Was there some announcement by SCOTUS? I thought the argument was that even the NYS legislature could reinstate the law, such that it needed to be found unconstitutional ?
SCOTUS hasn't said one way or another yet, but past decisions lay out the framework for mootness.
The way I understand Voluntary Cessation with respect to mootness is that if the offending party could simply resume the offensive action after the case is mooted, then Voluntary Cessation kicks in.
However, in this case New York State isn't the defendant. New York City is. The NYS legislation precludes NYC from reverting the rules back, and gives everything they asked for in the complaint. Voluntary Cessation can no longer apply. Then again, the NYS law hasn't been signed yet... soo...
But, as always, I'm not a lawyer.
I could be wrong about this but, I'm guessing that other rifle types, like the AK variations, are not as modular as the AR15 type rifles and it's harder to modify them for things like a bump stock?
Even with that "external device", AKs and ARs are NOT firing "automatically" because the recoil of the firearm is causing the trigger to reset every time. When it resets, it is a "separate function" of the trigger to fire again, despite the speed with which this occurs. Don't confuse and aggravate the situation more than has already been done by others.
The current legal landscape disagrees with you. Like it or not, bumpstocks are *legally* machine guns now. According to current law, AR-15's equipped with bumpstocks "shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Not a single court has even found a likelyhood of success in arguing against that interpretation of how bumpstocks work.
The question is whether or not bumpstocks make AR-15's "readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
Unfortunately, that question is being asked in the 9th Circuit.
Couldn't agree more
They're not trying to put the hospitality industry out of business
I don't understand
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
The bolded words are pretty specific and a bump stock (as we all know) does not cause the weapon to fire more than one shot per trigger pull. How can they ignore that?
Because. That's why.
As someone who is familiar with Supreme Court jurisprudence, there is no certainty with predicting what the Supreme Court will do and what it eventually does. The justiciability of the case is a standard that only Scotus determines on a case by case basis. It can and has mooted a case or has not depending on internal politics, not the some firmly set law.
Rules changes do not necessarily put a bar on litigation nor moot a case (e.g. see some of the immigration related cases). NY State is not a party to the case so its actions may or may not be relevant depending on the views of the justices. What is apparent through justices commenting on cert denials is that a bloc of about three justices --Alito, Thomas, and now Gorsuch (Kavanaugh is an unknown but was pretty good on the 2A when serving on the DC Circuit) want to resolve conflicts among the circuits that have risen since Heller and MacDonald. FWIW, the 2nd Circuit in NYC has the most idiosyncratic views of the 2A, even more so than the 9th for historical reasons.
Regarding the PLCAA, the federal law that bars most tort lawsuits in state and federal courts, there is significant caselaw existing so a judge or even a circuit cannot simply ignore prior precedent. CT courts are risking a slapdown in that case due to the CT Supreme Court decision allowing a suit derived from Newtown to go forward. As an aside, the 9th Circuit has reached nearly parity with Rep and Dems due to recent appointments and has not been as gun averse as other circuits. It will be difficult to rely in court in order the circumvent the PLCAA in that particular case on an executive decision regarding bumpstocks because that issue itself is currently being litigated and at the time of LV was legal.
The key text at issue is below,
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text
Most of the lawsuits that have went forward deal with a FFL selling to a) a mentally disturbed person which violated state and federal laws, b) a FFL that ignored an apparent straw purchase, and c) a gunstore owner who was alleged to be negligent in letting a prohibited person steal a firearm used to commit a murder.
The 2019 CT PLCAA liability case involving Newtown alleged marketing by a firearms company is the one that the CT Sup. Ct. allegedly stretched the meaning of negligence (kinda on the theory of attractive nuisance) to allow a trial to go forward on its claims.
"The four judges in the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled the case could fall under the vague and broad Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The allegation is Remington violated CUTPA by marketing their rifles as being effective in combat, and the marketing was aimed at young people. The claim is the marketing promotes illegal activity. CUTPA forbids marketing that promotes illegal activity." https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/supreme-court-should-hear-the-remington-appeal-in-the-plcaa-case/
Currently that ruling is being appealed to Scotus.
The plaintiffs apparently are pursuing a legal theory that semi-automatics such as the AR design that are easy to convert to full auto are de facto negligent. However, the PLCAA broadly bars assessing liability to companies based on illegal actions of others committing crimes. Most of the exceptions involved above deal with misconduct by the retailer, not the manufacturer. However, traditional liability such as a faulty products made by a manufacturer would not be protected under the law. Thus, an part or design that is defective such as the trigger in Remington firearms that could discharge unintentionally would not be protected from liability and was not.
It is possible that such an action might be held allowable for the makers of bumpstocks involved (if any) based on forseeability as facilitating illegal activity. It is difficult to see how that would extend to the design of the AR itself or other semi-automatics as they have been around over one century as the action itself to convert a design to full auto would be a criminal act which the PLCAA explicitly rules out as a cause of action.
Both the CT and NV cases are stretches under the current and conventional interpretations of the PLCAA regarding liability.
Since being emotionally or politically correct has nothing to do with veracity then the playing field is considerably larger.
It was explained to me once by someone brighter than me that these things are fundamentally flawed. The manufacturer of a consumer product isn't held responsible for the misuse or criminal use of their product. If your Mr Coffee pot malfunctions, and burns down your house, or injures you horribly while you are properly using it for its intended purpose, then sue away. You will probably win. But if you try modify the thing to use it to cook meth in your kitchen, and it burns your house down... well, that is both misuse AND criminal use. This is why we mere mortals are allowed to have motor vehicles capable of going so fast, and they are permitted on public roads and highways. We were deemed to be too irresponsible to own lawn darts, however.
Separate names with a comma.