Texan_Til_I_Die Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear New York state's lawsuit against gun manufacturers. This let's stand a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit and effectively ends one of the weapons that the anti 2nd Amendment crowd hoped to use to destroy the firearms industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/washington/10guns.html?_r=2&hp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gzilla45 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 That's good news. We need to win all the battles we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adjam5 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Great news, every victory protecting every lawful manufacturer, whether it be guns or bicycles is a worthy victory and a battle worth fighting for. Thanks for sharing that. Edited March 11, 2009 by Adjam5 spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 that's actually a pretty big victory, leaving gun owners and sellers in a very good spot. it literally shuts the other side down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Given the current administration, I tend to think any victory is a big victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 that's actually a pretty big victory, leaving gun owners and sellers in a very good spot. it literally shuts the other side down.I don't think it's going to end every lawsuit against manufacturers. Here's what went on in this particular case. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, bans most suits against the firearms industry. A narrow exception allows suits when a gun maker or dealer has knowingly violated state or federal statutes in sales and marketing practices — by knowingly selling a weapon to someone who fails a criminal background check, for example. In its suit, New York City contended that the gun makers had made themselves liable under that narrow exception, by failing to monitor firearms retailers closely enough and thus allowing guns to end up in the hands of criminals. Therefore, the city argued, the manufacturers had created a “condition that negatively affects the public health or safety,” and consequently were in violation of New York State’s public nuisance law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adjam5 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Correct me if I am wrong...but isn't it ATFE who should monitor gun sales? Not manufacturers? I can see dealers selling to the wrong people and becoming liable, but how in the world can a maker of a product, that performed the way it was intended to; be held liable for its misuse? Like spoons make people fat:rolleyes:. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but it just amazes me daily and I think we will see much more of this with the current administration's way of thinking. I hope the gun makers sue for law fees incurred from this frivolous lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I hope the gun makers sue for law fees incurred from this frivolous lawsuit. I'm sure New York State has tort protection, so it's doubtful the firearms manufacturers could ever get much out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.