Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: NY court rules man can sue gun dealer, dist., manuf.

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Thumbs down NY court rules man can sue gun dealer, dist., manuf.

    .

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    http://www.newsmax.com/US/shot-victi...0/06/id/458898
    NY state appeals court says a man can sue the dealer, distributer, & manufacturer behind a gun used to shoot him in 2003.

    After reading the article, I agree that the dealer was negligent (the buyer crossed state lines to purchase the pistol & is supposedly a felon), but how does that affect the distributor or dealer?

    Attorneys... argued that Ohio-based manufacturer Beemiller and the distributor, MKS Supply, violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.
    How were they supposed to know that a particular FFL wasn't running background checks, or looking at the buyer's ID (or maybe the buyer had a fake Ohio ID?)?

    "Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated, it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws," Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 10-06-2012 at 11:13 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    In reading this article, I noticed that it is in a state court and in a state that is notoriously anti. If the manufacturer and distributor, after this case has gone to state supreme court, appeal to the federal level, it should be reversed and thrown out.

    As MKEgal so astutely pointed out, neither the manufacturer nor the distributor could reasonably be expected to know that a particular dealer was not adhering to the law.

    At face value, it would seem that this is yet another attempt by the Brady Bunch to circumvent or negate statutory law.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Probably an untapped insurance with low rates that lawyers are trying to bleed.

    I can give an example in the contracting field yet it doesn't relate to point of the thread.

    Now I just hope they are unsuccessful in their lawsuits and are forced to pay for the legal fees.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The folks other than the dealer have a nice special defense .. it will hold for them. The plaintiff alleges they violated the law which would allow a suit to move forward. Proving it is another animal all together.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The folks other than the dealer have a nice special defense .. it will hold for them. The plaintiff alleges they violated the law which would allow a suit to move forward. Proving it is another animal all together.
    The special defense is the Gun Control Act of1968. No liability for the actions of others for FFLs that follow the law. (This is why Bloomberg tries to document straw purchases before he sues FFLs in crooked NY courts.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Somehow I see even a mediocre defense attorney digging around and finding out that the feds passed a law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397 ) that says you cannot do what the guy is trying to do. Not in federal court and not in state court.

    From not bothering to read anything but the comments, it sounds like he may have an excellent personal injury suit against the FFL. But FFLs are notorious for running on very thin profit margins and not having much in resources beyond their current stock. Gazing at the deeper pockets of the distributor and manufaturer will not make money appear, no matter how much the guy's attorney wants his share of any award. (I do hope the attorney took the case on a contingency basis.) And based on my opening statement, it appears that the attorney who filed this lawsuit is less than mediocre.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    Somehow I see even a mediocre defense attorney digging around and finding out that the feds passed a law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397 ) that says you cannot do what the guy is trying to do. Not in federal court and not in state court.
    Even though the defendants brought it up in their paperwork, the appellate court managed to reason their way out of that law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Somehow I see even a mediocre defense attorney digging around and finding out that the feds passed a law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397 ) that says you cannot do what the guy is trying to do. Not in federal court and not in state court.

    From not bothering to read anything but the comments, it sounds like he may have an excellent personal injury suit against the FFL. But FFLs are notorious for running on very thin profit margins and not having much in resources beyond their current stock. Gazing at the deeper pockets of the distributor and manufaturer will not make money appear, no matter how much the guy's attorney wants his share of any award. (I do hope the attorney took the case on a contingency basis.) And based on my opening statement, it appears that the attorney who filed this lawsuit is less than mediocre.

    stay safe.

    Most contractors have very thin profit margins also, it didn't stop attorneys from tapping into their insurance. Raising the cost of insurance and actually forcing many folks out of the contracting arena. (Washington state, specific not sure about the rest of the nation).

    Since I am fairly clueless on FFL's and manufacturing business, I am only assuming they carry insurance/bond of some sort according to the laws of the state they are in.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-07-2012 at 10:30 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Even though the defendants brought it up in their paperwork, the appellate court managed to reason their way out of that law.
    That's because such motions are heard the court assumes that the pleadings of the plaintiff are true. Anyone with an ounce of brain can write a complaint that will pass a motion for dismissal or pre-trial summary judgement.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Even though the defendants brought it up in their paperwork, the appellate court managed to reason their way out of that law.
    So it will take the manufacturer and distributor defendants a bit longer to have the thing thrown out. Then it will be their turn to counter-sue for frivilous and malicious litigation. Look at the first two entries regarding "barratry" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry . It's 99.9% of attorneys who give the rest a bad name.

    Too bad judges enjoy absolute soveerign immunity, even when they are dead wrong. Only way to overcome that is to prove that from the beginning they had the intent to harm someone.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •