MKEgal
Regular Member
.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
NY court rules man can sue gun dealer, dist., manuf.
- Thread starter MKEgal
- Start date
MKEgal
Regular Member
http://www.newsmax.com/US/shot-victim-sue-gunmaker/2012/10/06/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?
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?
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?)?
Last edited:
SFCRetired
Regular Member
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.
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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 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.
davidmcbeth
Banned
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.
Thundar
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Even though the defendants brought it up in their paperwork, the appellate court managed to reason their way out of that law.skidmark said:
:uhoh:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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.
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:
davidmcbeth
Banned
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.
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.