If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Isn't there a Federal law that says suing a gun mfg for the actions of one of their end users is prohibited?
Isn't there a Federal law that says suing a gun mfg for the actions of one of their end users is prohibited?
Edit: Whoops. I should read more of the article first before posting! I expect if they appeal to Federal court that this would get thrown out.
Yes. This suit will get squashed PDQ
Just awful. What they want is for no gun mfgs to sell to NY dealers.
Bostic looks like the big criminal here, but what about the person who actually shot Williams ?? Why isn't his name listed here?
Then I also ask how does a NY court have jurdisdiction over an activity that occured in another state, when those businesses did not ship that item to NY.
Then I also ask how does a NY court have jurdisdiction over an activity that occured in another state, when those businesses did not ship that item to NY.
This case has been litigated many times. Unless the plaintiff can establish a defective gun existed and trigger products liability issues, then the case should be dismissed.
+1The title is not reflected in the article.
Isn't there a Federal law that says suing a gun mfg for the actions of one of their end users is prohibited?
Edit: Whoops. I should read more of the article first before posting! I expect if they appeal to Federal court that this would get thrown out.
15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903
It sounds like the plaintiff here convinced the New York appellate division that it didn't apply, since plaintiff alleges some sort of criminal wrongdoing.
On the contrary, it appears the Brady Campaign has found a way "around" this law (at least in New York State courts) by cleverly drafting their complaint.
EDIT: ...And by competent forum-shopping.
stupid article said:The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams!
While I'm confident the suit will go nowhere, it still costs the industry money in legal fees and increased product liability insurance.
I've been a Sturm Ruger shareholder since the 80s and every year, they would discuss the effects of pending liability suits in their annual statement.
Ruger generally didn't settle, so they spent more on attorneys, but at least were then not viewed as an easy mark. Best case is that these suits force
makers to hang onto more cash than they otherwise would. Cash that could be reinvested in the business or distributed to shareholders.
Don
Plaintiffs will lose and will lose big.
Has anyone stopped to think how a NY court is going to rule on interstate commerce or on conduct legal in another state?
Sure, they can rule all they want, but let them enforce their writ. We shall see then.
It's a state court ruling on a federal issue. I'm no lawyer but that seems prima facie evidence of lack of jurisdiction.
I question how an Ohio business can be tried by a NY state court for a federal tort.
Is this case still going, 8 years later?If the opposition wins, someone should cite it as precedent and bring suit against a car dealer that knowingly sold a car to someone who has a history of DUI or bad driving - for example, the irresponsible act of selling a new car to someone whose trade has an alcohol interlock device installed.
Ooops, missed the date when I clicked on a similar thread. Anyone know how the case turned out?Is this case still going, 8 years later?