Judge: New law protecting gun industry doesn't apply to New York suit

[K-Romulus]

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--gunlawsuits-newyo1202dec02,0,139395.story

NEW YORK -- A federal law designed to give the gun industry broad immunity from lawsuits filed by crime victims and violence-plagued cities does not apply to a pending suit by the city of New York, a federal judge ruled Friday.

If upheld, the ruling would raise questions about the effectiveness of the federal legislation, which was championed by the National Rifle Association and signed into law by President Bush in October.

U.S. Judge Jack B. Weinstein said in a 97-page opinion that the legislation contained an exception wide enough to allow New York's claim to go forward.

In a victory for gunmakers, however, Weinstein also rejected the city's argument that the law was unconstitutional.

"As construed, the act adequately balances congressional concern over the viability of the handgun industry and the concern of the states and municipalities for the safety of their populations against handgun violence spawned by careless merchandising," Weinstein wrote.

Acknowledging that his decision would be controversial, the judge immediately stayed all action in the trial in order to allow gun manufacturers to appeal.

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said he was confident the bulk of the opinion would be overturned.

"We believe it is now the law of the land that law-abiding manufacturers and retailers will not be held responsible for the independent actions of criminals," Arulanandam said. He added that the NRA had expected to encounter "judicial activism" in the law's early days.

New York is one of several cities suing major U.S. suppliers of handguns, arguing that gunmakers violated public nuisance law by fostering a situation that allowed widespread access to illegal firearms.

The suit seeks no money damages, but wants gunmakers to more closely police dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

A trial was scheduled to begin on Nov. 28, but looked like it might be derailed by enactment of the federal law, which required that most pending suits seeking to hold gunmakers and sellers accountable for crime "shall be immediately dismissed."

The act allowed lawsuits to stay alive only if a gunmaker or seller knowingly violated a law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.

Lawrence Greenwald, an attorney for Beretta USA, said Congress meant that exception to apply only to laws specifically regulating guns.

Weinstein interpreted it more broadly.

"If Congress had wanted to limit the predicate exception ... it could easily have done so. It did not," he wrote.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the ruling in a written statement and said the shooting of a New York police officer during a traffic stop on Monday is "deadly evidence that the scourge of guns in the city is ever-present."

"Our lawsuit is designed and intended to stop this scourge," Bloomberg said. "With the gun industry completely unwilling to take reasonable steps to control their own dealers, the city has no recourse but to go to the courts."

 

[beerslurpy]

Unfortunately, there is not much that can get between a biased judge and his desired outcome.

That is why we have appellate courts. Trying to fit commercial firearms regulation into nuisance law precedent is not going to fly after even a cursory examination. Spreading the bounds of what can fit under the category of a "public nuisance" is a great way of attacking private property and liberty, but it requires the cooperation of all 3 branches to make it work, IMO. All you need is one judge to note that it obviously doesnt fit and you get thrown back out of court.

Shame that no one can punish NYC for blatantly ignoring federal laws. I'm reminded of how certain southern states responded to desegratation and were subsequently forced to comply.

 

[beerslurpy]

by fostering a situation that allowed widespread access to illegal firearms

And there is the fatal flaw. Creating a situation in which bad things could possibly happen is VERY different from directly causing those bad things to happen yourself.

Example:
I run a factory in which large vats of chemicals are exposed to the air with workers standing around the perimeter stirring with long sticks. The workers dont normally fall in and I have complied with all workplace safety regulations regarding safety harnesses and railings.

One day there is a simpsons episode in which there is a joke about pushing people into chemical vats. As a result, the workers begin making jokes about pushing each other in. One of the workers falls in and melts.

Are the simpsons responsible for encouraging horseplay around chemical vats?
Am I responsible for operating an environment in which people coudl be harmed?
Or are the workers who messed around on the railings and fell in responsible for their own stupidity?

Ye olde calculus of negligence says that if I took all reasonable precautions to prevent the more obvious or serious harms that could take place, I should not be exposed to large amounts of liability. Yet here we have firearms manufacturers exposed to large amounts of liability for harms that could not easily have been foreseen or prevented. All reasonable safeguards against firearms ending up in the hands of criminals are already in place. Probably more safeguards than could reasonably be needed.

If anyone is responsible for the high crime in NYC, it is the NYC government. But we know from Gonzales v Castle Rock and DeShaney v Winnebago County that the 14th amendment does not create a property right in having the government protect you from criminals. So they literally cant be held responsible for keeping down crime. I am confused as to how Beretta, an Italian firearms company could somehow be more responsible for NYC crime than the NYC government itself.

 

[Master Blaster]

What a BIG Surprise.

NOT

It took the lawyers a whole two minutes to walz right around this law.

 

[jacobtowne]

IN a perfect world, Weinstein and Bloomberg would be behind bars.
JT

 

[Al Norris]

It should be remembered that Weinstein has bent (himself and the law) over backwards, in order to reach the conclusions he always reaches.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

New York is one of several cities suing major U.S. suppliers of handguns, arguing that gunmakers violated public nuisance law by fostering a situation that allowed widespread access to illegal firearms.

The suit seeks no money damages, but wants gunmakers to more closely police dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

Last I heard, policing gun dealers over illegal sales was the jurisdiction
of the BATFE under the DoJ. The judge wants the gun industry to
be police. That is real judicial activism.

Under this idea, in the 1920s we could have enforced the Prohibition
Act by suing Canada for having legal booze that was smuggled into
the USA.

 

[Jeeper]

This ruling is a good thing since it happened very quickly. It will allow an appeals court to overturn it and set precedent for the entire circuit. Since it will be the first appeals court to hear this issue the precedent will also be very persuasive in any future case in another circuit.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Shame that no one can punish NYC for blatantly ignoring federal laws.

Well, no, but at least theoretically Weinstein could be impeached by Congress for deliberately misconstruing their law. Hasn't been done, but there's a first time for everything.

 

[Standing Wolf]

As construed, the act adequately balances congressional concern over the viability of the handgun industry and the concern of the states and municipalities for the safety of their populations against handgun violence spawned by careless merchandising...

How did that nitwit ever make it through high school? "Handgun violence spawned by careless merchandising"? Has this creature never heard of cause and effect?

 

[ka50]

With logic like that they might as well sue airplanes manufacturers for creating an object that can fly and crash into buildings.

Ironically, having guns on those airplanes in posession of armed peacful passengers or pilots and crew would most likely prevent many deaths.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The suit seeks no money damages, but wants gunmakers to more closely police dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

That's a particularly absurd assertion considering that, in New York State, no one may even purchase a handgun without a State issued permit to do so, and each and every handgun must be individually registered at a local police department in the owner's name, and the description and serial number must also be printed physically on his actual permit card. You also cannot sell a handgun that is registered to you, except to a person who is authorized to purchase it, and has obtained a police issued purchase document proving that he is so authorized, after which you, the seller, must have that handgun removed from your police registry of handguns and the description and serial number removed from your physical permit card. Dealers cannot sell a handgun to anyone without both a New York State issued permit AND a police department issued purchase document describing the weapon to be purchased, including the serical number. So it is literally impossible for gun manufacturers to distribute handguns to anyone in New York State who is not first deemed authorized to have that particular weapon by his local police authority and by the State of New York. This suit is, therefore, absurd on its face, and should have been thrown out with prejudice.

 

[Bruce H]

Unfortunately, there is not much that can get between a biased judge and his desired outcome.

That is why we have firearms. Unfortunalely we lack the will to use them properly. Here is a prime example that needs to be made.

 

[RealGun]

The suit seeks no money damages, but wants gunmakers to more closely police dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

I don't know that the manufacturer has any responsibility other than to qualify customers as licensed dealers and perhaps to cooperate with BATF on suspicious orders. It seems to me that if NY has any complaint, it should be with BATF. If they want to "police orders", they should talk to the police. Manufacturers just sell stuff to people with business credentials and good credit.

 

[Turkey Creek]

The Law is what ever some imbecil in a black robe says it is-

 

[LAR-15]

The Law is what ever some imbecil in a black robe says it is-

Correct.

Judicial activism is not something made up.

At least this judge smacked the Brady Campaign and found it consitutional (despite gutting it with his final ruling)

 

[stevelyn]

IN a perfect world, Weinstein and Bloomberg would be behind bars.
JT

Nope. In a perfect world they'd be dangling off the end of a rope.

 

[AirForceShooter]

97 pages!!!
That's just torture.
And if a lower court judge stays his own ruling pending appeal you know he's not too sure of his own ruling.
But.... it's NYC. anything can happen.

AFS
an EX NYer.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have complete confidence that like many of Weinstein's past anti-gun rulings, this one will be overturned as well. I am not surprised at the ruling though. Weinstein has done everything he can do to stick his finger in the eye of gun manufacturers. It isn't by accident that these anti-gun suits started ending up in his courtroom. The antis made sure they would end up there because they feel Weinstein is sympathetic to their cause and based on Weinstein's lengthy diatribes against gun manufacturers in his opinions, I'd say there is no question that they are correct.

I also doubt Weinstein was doing any favors to gun manufacturers by ruling the law constitutional. More likely he was pointing out to Brady lawyers the weakness in their arguments so that they would have a better appeal on Constitutional grounds when this gets overturned.

 

[Crosshair]

Jeeper

This ruling is a good thing since it happened very quickly. It will allow an appeals court to overturn it and set precedent for the entire circuit. Since it will be the first appeals court to hear this issue the precedent will also be very persuasive in any future case in another circuit.

+1 I don't see how this can stand. It will get overturned so long as someone who passed 3rd grade shows up at the court on our side.

 

[hillbilly]

Dang.....just dang.....

And I had heard that Weinstein had quit using that really cheap street crank............

Guess I heard wrong.

hillbilly

 

[Waitone]

keep it up, guys. Just keep pushin'.

 

[Ezekiel]

Dang.....just dang.....

And I had heard that Weinstein had quit using that really cheap street crank............

Guess I heard wrong.

hillbilly

I take offense with your statement. This obviously involved some very expensive crank...

 

[hillbilly]

Ezekiel....you think maybe we sould start a charitable fund to help Weinstein purchase his supply of very fine, very expensive crank?

hillbilly