Since when can you sue a gun store in a different state for crimes in your city?

[sierramist]

I must have just missed this when it happened. Is there really anything stopping anti-gun mayors from litigating away American gun stores?

NYC, foes split over effect of gun shop lawsuits

By DAVID B. CARUSO – 20 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Managers at the Bob Moates Sport Shop were spoiling for a fight when they found out New York City was suing the Virginia store over the way it sold firearms.
Workers hung Mayor Michael Bloomberg's photo on a shotgun rack over the words "our worst enemy." The Midlothian, Va., shop, decorated with Confederate flags, mockingly held a "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway" to finance its legal defense. One manager called the mayor "an idiot."
Two years later, the case will have a much more subdued ending next week.
The business is poised to become the latest in a string of firearms dealers that have settled lawsuits accusing them of contributing to street crime in New York by making it easy for customers to get around rules intended to keep guns off the black market.
New York sued 27 shops in five states in 2006, claiming they had collectively sold hundreds of guns that wound up in criminals' hands in New York.
The case was viewed as Bloomberg's attempt to send a message about lax enforcement of U.S. gun control laws, especially in states where it is relatively easy to buy a handgun.
Several shopkeepers initially promised a fierce fight, but those prospects have withered in the past two years.
Of the 27 dealers who were sued, four simply closed down or sold to new owners, saying the fight wasn't worth the cost.
Another dealer had his license revoked by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for record-keeping violations. One stopped contesting the city's case after being charged in federal court with knowingly selling a weapon to a convicted felon during an unrelated ATF sting.
Three persuaded the city to drop them as defendants after producing records indicating that relatively few crime guns had been traced to their stores in recent years.
Almost all the rest entered into settlement agreements, taking deals to have a court-appointed monitor supervise their sales practices for three years. Many said the cost of opposing the city in court was too high.
Moates' withdrawal would leave just a single merchant still vowing to fight.
Jay Wallace, the owner of the Adventure Outdoors sporting goods store in Smyrna, Ga., has countersued Bloomberg and other city officials for libel in Georgia, saying they wrongly branded him as a rogue gun dealer. That case is pending.
His store also remains a defendant in the city's lawsuit. Wallace recently opted not to contest the suit at this stage in the hopes of speeding an appeal to a court more favorable to the gun industry. But he said he has no intention of quitting until his reputation is restored.
"What if somebody got up and said you were a murderer?" Wallace asked. "Would you settle with them? Would you say, 'That's OK?'"
With other legal action relating to the case winding down, New York officials have claimed a measure of victory.
Since agreeing to have their business practices monitored, few of those stores have been linked to new crime guns, the city said.
"Our innovative litigation was aimed at holding accountable the small percentage of gun dealers who break the law — and it has worked," said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg's top aide on criminal justice issues.
Gun-rights groups are skeptical.
National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said almost all the sued dealers were law-abiding to begin with and were "beaten into submission" by the city's well-financed legal effort.
The city's claim to have seen a reduction in the number of guns sold by the stores and used in crimes may be premature.
According to federal gun tracing data, firearms used in crimes committed in New York usually take several years to wind their way to the street from the stores where they were originally bought.
An ATF report published earlier this year indicated that the five states in which stores were sued — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina — had been the source of fewer guns used in New York City street crime over the past year, but there was also an overall reduction in the number of guns seized in the city.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iAQwAkpeFcj2Vvl8pFGflMDVpDHwD92NMRDG0

 

[Standing Wolf]

Since when can you sue a gun store in a different state for crimes in your city?

If you're a leftist extremist billionaire, you can find lawyers who'll be glad to do any filthy thing you have in mind, and thank you for the privilege into the bargain.

 

[orionengnr]

With luck and persistence, these cases will be appealed, and come before a Federal Court...and perhaps one day before the Supreme Court.

If there is any Justice in this world, all will be set right at some point in this process.

 

[highlander 5]

This is America,you can sue anybody for any reason and in the case of the govt UNLIMITED funds to just wear you down til you concede or die,which ever comes first. I'm waiting to see fi the FEDERAL govt is going to charge Blombergs goons for straw purchases.

 

[basicblur]

If you're a leftist extremist billionaire...

Being a billionaire ain't got nuttin' to do with it...he's using NY taxpayers' money! 'Course, being a billionaire did help him buy his way into his current position, which the folks of NY should rectify in the next election?

BTW...the gun shop I do 90% of my business with was one involved, but was dropped from the suit. I don't know why he was dropped-all I got was the lawyers handling stuff for him on the NY end "found" something and had him dropped from the suit.

I do know there was a lot of fishing going on! Bloomberg paid for 2 legal secretaries to come to his shop and spend a full day going through all his sales records. One serial # they were checking on (supposedly used in a crime in NY?) was still in the possession of the fella who had recently bought it (he brought it to the store and showed the store owner) and neither it nor he have ever been anywhere near NY (he says he's never lost a damn thing in NY)!

 

[esq_stu]

If you're a leftist extremist billionaire, you can find lawyers who'll be glad to do any filthy thing you have in mind, and thank you for the privilege into the bargain.

You don't have to be a billionaire to sue in Federal court. And Federal court exists, in part, for lawsuits where the parties are from different states.

Welcome to reality.

 

[thebaldguy]

Litigation for submission is a commonly used tactic; in the late 80's, the PMRC sued music groups numerous times from numerous locations to get them to quit playing/producing music they deemed obscene.

This tactic is legal, but it is financially and emotionally draining for the person on the defense. In the case of a government attacking a business, their funds are virtually unlimited and this tactic can bankrupt a business - which is really their goal. It is difficult to sue/collect for damages and legal fees even if you prevail.

 

[loneviking]

Since when can you sue a gun store in a different state for crimes in your city?

The suit is in Fed. court and part of the jurisdictional rules are that there must be 'minimum contacts' for the state to exert 'In Personam' jurisdiction. This is nothing new, it's done all the time in all sorts of lawsuits. Do a search using 'minimum contacts rule' and you should find your answer.

 

[Z-Michigan]

The suit is in Fed. court and part of the jurisdictional rules are that there must be 'minimum contacts' for the state to exert 'In Personam' jurisdiction. This is nothing new, it's done all the time in all sorts of lawsuits. Do a search using 'minimum contacts rule' and you should find your answer.

While "minimum contacts" is the name for the type of analysis in a civil procedure context, as a doctrine it is about as clear as Mississippi mud under an oil spill. I say this as a lawyer who got well versed in it in law school, AND regularly uses the concept in practice. Anyone should go ahead and look it up, but if you think it's not making much sense, don't feel that you're missing out on something.

IMHO, the reality of "minimum contacts" is that anything which has even a tiny chance of not provoking maniacal laughter constitutes sufficient contact for personal jurisdiction. The test is almost nothing.

To the bigger topic, I believe these suits are abusive. It should not be possible to file them in NY's own local federal court. Oh, I understand the legal reason why it is, but in this context I believe it is unfair and inappropriate. I also think the US should consider a loser-pays approach to attorney fees in civil litigation, with discretion for the judge to award fees depending on how meritorius or frivolous the case may have been.

 

[loneviking]

While "minimum contacts" is the name for the type of analysis in a civil procedure context, as a doctrine it is about as clear as Mississippi mud under an oil spill.

ROFLMAO!

That's a very good description for a whole bunch of stuff you learn in law school. I'll never forget trying to wrap my mind around the hearsay rules and exceptions. Minimum contacts was easy compared to that!

Yep, have to agree that the suits are abusive and don't belong in a New York court. A few greedy, blood sucking, politically motivated lawyers and politicians with an agenda to push.

 

[Jim K]

The New York City mayor "persuaded" a federal judge ($$$???) to allow those suits in his court on the grounds that the dealers were violating federal law, mostly on "straw man" sales.

In some cases the city hired private investigators (aka, thugs) to do illegal purchases, and secretly video tape them. Unfortunately some dealers don't look good. Regardless, it has worked.

Now the good mayor will probably start on gun owners, suing all of us and getting court orders forcing us to give up our guns. I would put nothing past a maniac with money and power.

P.S. No matter what lies he is telling this week, Barack Obama has approved Bloomberg's program; he supports a total ban on handguns with severe restrictions on all other guns.

Jim

 

[basicblur]

Someone posted a link a while back where a judge in NY ruled Bloomberg’s cronies did nothing illegal since they never intended to go through with the straw purchase.
Doesn’t matter whether they intended to go through with it or not, if they did (which a lot of ‘em/all of ‘em? did), they broke the law-if they didn’t, then how in the hell is the dealer accused of breaking the law? (Answer: he’s not-that’s why he’s being sued in civil instead of criminal court).
Actually, even if they didn’t go through with the sale (I don’t know of any that didn’t) they still broke the law by lying on the various forms they filled out-stuff like “is this firearm being purchased for yourself (or whatever the form wording is) and from what I understand, the private detectives used a business address on the form. My understanding is you cannot use a business address-you must use YOUR home address.

Anywho…even if they did make a straw purchase (and I know many/all? did), the shop owner still did nothing wrong as all he can do is have ‘em fill out the forms (how does he know they’re lying if they have all the documentation) and run the check. If it comes back clean, he sold them the gun, doing nothing illegal. I understand this is why the shop owners are being sued in civil court (where anybody can sue anybody over anything?) instead of criminal court (because the shop owner did nothing illegal).

Hey…the state of VA, the ATF, etc say the shop owner did nothing illegal-that’s why they’re not pursuing it. The state of VA did pass ANOTHER law and sent Bloomberg and his cronies a letter stating if they pulled another stunt like that in VA they would be in violation of the new state law (as well as a few others).
I like to call this the “this time we really mean it” law-hell, they’ve already broken numerous laws, both state and federal. If anybody in either the state or national level had any balls (or really wanted to enforce existing laws) they would have already arrested Bloomberg and company for a number of violations.

 

[Jeff F]

Anyone can sue for any reason. Is it right, I don't think so. Will it fly in court, who knows.