New York "Appeals court affirms dismissal of state's lawsuit against gun makers"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
from the A.P. via Newsday

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/w...un24,0,1023471.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
Appeals court affirms dismissal of state's lawsuit against gun makers

By SAMUEL MAULL
Associated Press Writer

June 24, 2003, 5:59 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- A Manhattan appeals court Tuesday affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit in which the state accused gun makers of knowingly contributing to the "flood of illegal guns" in New York that result in injuries or death.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court found 3-1 that it was "legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic" to require the gun makers to take unspecified steps to lessen the availability and criminal use of handguns.

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued members of the gun industry in 2001. He alleged that they had created a public nuisance by knowingly distributing firearms in a way that put large numbers of guns in the hands of people who use them illegally.

"Defendants know that a significant portion of their guns become crime guns but turn a blind eye so as to increase profits, at the cost of many human lives and much human suffering," Spitzer said in his original complaint.

State Supreme Court Justice Louis York ruled Aug. 10, 2001, that Spitzer had presented insufficient evidence to support his claim that nine gun manufacturers, 12 wholesalers and three importers had violated the state's public nuisance law.

York, finding the state's case failed to link the gun industry directly to the public nuisance, wrote, "it is obvious that the parties most directly responsible for the unlawful use of handguns are the individuals who unlawfully use them."

"We agree and affirm," the appeals judges wrote.

They said the defendants were engaged in "the lawful manufacture, marketing and sale of a defect-free product in a highly regulated activity far removed from the downstream, unlawful use of handguns."

The appeals judges said it would be impractical for the courts to try to regulate the gun industry. The legislative and executive branches of government might be "better suited to address the societal problems" at issue in this case, the appellate majority wrote.

Juanita Scarlett, a spokeswoman for Spitzer, said, "We believe that the court misapplied certain doctrinal principles. We are considering an appeal."

Lawyers for the gun manufacturers could not be reached by telephone for comment.

Spitzer's lawsuit was similar to one brought in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The civil rights group alleged that gun makers knew corrupt dealers were selling firearms to criminals in minority communities and did nothing to stop it.

The NAACP 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.

A trial of the NAACP suit ended in May. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein is pending.

Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press
 
Juanita Scarlett, a spokeswoman for Spitzer, said, "We believe that the court misapplied certain doctrinal principles...."
Am I to assume that by "misapplied certain doctrinal principles" she is referring to this statement (that blew these idiots out of the water)?
"it is obvious that the parties most directly responsible for the unlawful use of handguns are the individuals who unlawfully use them."
 
WOOHOO!

"it is obvious that the parties most directly responsible for the unlawful use of handguns are the individuals who unlawfully use them."
State Supreme Court Justice Louis York

"We agree and affirm," the appeals judges wrote.
VERY powerful stuff! Goes directly to the heart of the matter. I didn't think NY judges had it in them.
 
York, finding the state's case failed to link the gun industry directly to the public nuisance, wrote, "it is obvious that the parties most directly responsible for the unlawful use of handguns are the individuals who unlawfully use them."

Why, what a novel idea!

Now it's time for the nation's firearms manufacturers to file suit against the cities, counties, and states that tried to bankrupt them with frivolous law suits.
 
Speaking of suing the cities and counties, whatever happened to this?

*********************
PRESS RELEASE
*********************

TEXAS LEGISLATORS SUE CITIES AND COUNTIES ACROSS COUNTRY IN DEFENSE OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Atlanta, Chicago, Boston among defendants that are attempting to bankrupt gun industry with frivolous lawsuits. Miami-Dade County, L.A. County, and the District of Columbia are also defendants.


POC: Trey Blocker (512) 481-0168
815 Brazos St., Ste. #700
Austin, Texas 78701
November 15, 2000 http://www.libertydefense.com
[email protected]


AUSTIN - Since late 1998, 19 cities, 5 counties have filed lawsuits against the gun manufacturers in an attempt to achieve de facto gun control through the courts and ultimately bankrupt the gun industry.

That is why, on November 15th 2000, over two-dozen Texas legislators and several gun stores will bring suit against those cities and counties for conspiring to violate the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"We are filing this lawsuit to stop these cities from damaging our right to keep and bear arms and the right of gun stores to conduct their businesses free from harassing lawsuits," said Representative Suzanna Hupp.

Hupp, known as a passionate defender of the 2nd amendment ever since her tragic involvement in the 1991 Luby's massacre in Killeen, is joined by former Texas State Senator and Civil Liberties Defense Foundation President Jerry Paterson in calling for an end to legislating from the bench.

"We want to put a stop, once and for all, to the attempts by litigious attorneys to hold lawful industries liable for the criminal misuse of their products," Patterson said. "If we do not stop them now, the alcohol, automotive, and countless other, industries will be attacked next, sending prices skyward and affecting the availability and affordability of products for the average consumer."

The lawsuit, copies of which can be obtained on the Civil Liberties Defense Foundation website at www.libertydefense.com, alleges that the defendants have conspired to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of Texans and the rights of gun stores as protected under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief proper under the law.

"The Second Amendment is a sacred part of the U.S. Constitution, and we will not stand by as cities in other parts of the country try to damage the rights of Texans," said State Representative Carl Isett of Lubbock.

DEFENDANTS


Atlanta, Georgia
Boston, Massachusetts
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Chicago, Illinois
Camden, New Jersey
Cincinnati, Ohio
Miami, Florida
Newark, New Jersey
Gary, Indiana
New Orleans, Louisiana
St. Louis, Missouri
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
San Francisco, California
Wilmington, Delaware
Compton, California
West Hollywood, California
Sacramento, California
San Mateo, California
Berkeley, California
Los Angeles County, California
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Camden County, New Jersey
Wayne County, Michigan
Alameda County, California
District of Columbia

PLAINTIFFS


Rep. Ray Allen
Rep. Leo Berman
Rep. Dennis Bonnen
Rep. Wayne Christian
Rep. Robby Cook
Rep. Frank Corte
Rep. Mary Denny
Rep. Rick Green
Rep. Kent Grusendorf
Rep. Judy Hawley
Rep. Talmage Heflin
Rep. Harvey Hildebran
Rep. Charlie Howard
Rep. Suzanna Hupp
Rep. Terry Keel
Rep. Jim Keffer
Rep. Carl Isett
Rep. Mike Krusee
Rep. Gene Seaman
Rep. Robert Talton
Rep. Ron Wilson
Rep. Arlene Wolhgemuth


CLDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation former in 1999 by several former and current Texas legislators for the purpose of providing educational information relating to the preservation of the freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and to provide legal services necessary for the protection of those rights.
 
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court found 3-1 that it was "legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic" to require the gun makers to take unspecified steps to lessen the availability and criminal use of handguns.
How's that quote go? 'You'd better put some ice on that'? :evil:

Kharn
 
Now`s the time for NYers to contact their representatives and demand the resignation of Spitzer for appropriating taxpayers money under false pretenses. It won`t work but the squeaky wheel can make a lot of noise.:neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top