Shooting Down the 2nd Amendment, One Lawsuit At a Time

Canada Free Press ^ | October 14, 2012 | Arnold Ahlert

[Snuph]

New York appeals court has ruled that --the companies that made and distributed the handgun can be sued... . It was one of those little stories that most people miss, even more so when it is released during a heated presidential election. But it is one that is critically important because it represents an unprecedented power grab by the one profession that has arguably done more damage to America than any other. If Americans don’t demand an end to this nonsense, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The details of the story are both simple and infuriating: a New York appeals court in has ruled that a former high school athlete shot in 2003 can sue—the companies that made and distributed the handgun used to shoot him.

Danny Williams, now 25, was promising high school basketball player who was shot in the stomach while playing hoops in front of his house. As a victim, he deserves nothing but sympathy. Cornell Caldwell, who shot him in a case of mistaken identity, is currently in prison, and deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the distributor and manufacturer of the gun involved?

The continued pursuit of this case rests on the idea that gun manufacturer, Beemiller, “knew” it was making guns tied to urban street crime, as did the gun distributor, MKS Supply, which was working closely with Beemiller. They “knew” because the gun used to shoot Williams was among some 250 guns purchased at Ohio gun shows by now-convicted gun trafficker James Nigel Bostic. Williams’ attorneys contend that gun show dealer Charles Brown, also “had to have known” Bostic was buying guns for illegal purposes.

Attorneys for the gun industry—an ominous phrase that inadvertently reveals the staggering scope of where trial lawyers would

[Snuph]

So by extension knife and baseball bat manufacturers are liable for crimes committed with their products as well.

[WriteOn]

It’s one thing to let a lawsuit go forward, another to assume it will succeed.

[fwdude]

Lawsuits don’t have to “succeed” to do their intended damage. That this even saw the light of a courtroom is victory enough for Constitution haters.

[Old Sarge]

Whaddaya think, gents?

[Snuph]

Exactly! This ruling opens the flood gates...

[rellimpank]

---That’s the small picture. The larger picture is what should deeply concern every American. Nothing has affected this nation more deeply than the “sue everyone” mentality that is rapidly turning virtually any interaction between two human beings into a potentially litigious event. Add the reams of rules and regulations enacted by government at every level to the mix—so much so that the law not only becomes unknown, but unknowable—and the trajectory is clear: we are litigating and regulating our way into a totalitarian strait-jacket.---

--the key paragraph, IMHO-

-incidentally , I entered "banglist" as akeyword--

[Navy Patriot]

Lawsuits don’t have to “succeed” to do their intended damage.

Exactly, the respondent must finance a defense, or pay the extortion demanded.

Prevailing usually does not recoup the litigation expense, and never any damages from the plaintiff and their lawyers.

We need a system where "loser pays" to the extent that it is effectively a wager, you win, or you and your lawyers pay the amount you sued for, plus fees, to the respondent.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

So, if a drunk driver injures or kills an innocent person, and it is proven in court that the drunk driver drank too much Coors beer and drove a Ford Explorer, can the victims sue the Ford Motor Company and Coors?

[longtermmemmory]

we have loser pays in most situations.

we need LAWYER has to pay too AND the obligation is non-dischargable in bankruptcy AND the ENTIRE LAWFIRM is liable.

[factoryrat]

Doesn’t matter. In all reality, there’s more guns in this country than their are people. Even if the feds conficated all of the guns and ammo they know about, there’s still more out there that they can’t touch if they tried. One of the problems with trying to police an industrialized nation is that you don’t know who can make munitions from scratch, how many are involved, whre to find them, or how to stop them. All of their lines of defense grind to halt when they have to go up against the very same people who created the weapons that they rely upon. A word to the wise: Do not f!@# with the people who created that shield you hide behind.

[Navy Patriot]

We need LAWYER has to pay too...

I said that.

AND the obligation is non-dischargable in bankruptcy AND the ENTIRE LAWFIRM is liable.

I didn't say that, I should have, as it was my intent.

[Navy Patriot]

It would even allow suing the hourly bottling line worker at Coors, he/she KNEW about the evil alcohol they were helping to get to the drunk.

[ozzymandus]

Bonnie and Clyde drove Fords. Car companies have a lot more money than gun makers.

[Oldpuppymax]

Didn’t the SC rule that gun manufacturers cannot be sued for shootings with their weapons? Or was that a law passed by congress. (You get older and start to forget stuff!)

[OneWingedShark]

We need a system where "loser pays" to the extent that it is effectively a wager, you win, or you and your lawyers pay the amount you sued for, plus fees, to the respondent.

The problem with a "loser pays" environment is that it will tend to make 'justice' purchasable to the highest bidder. {Imagine a big company, wrongfully terminating an employee. If the termination is less than outright blatantly wrong (ie. fired for refusing to use defective materials) then the wronged may consider the courts to be "not worth the effort."}

No, the biggest problem is that as-a-nation we do not value Justice: if we did, then we would do Justice.
(And our acceptance of abortion poignantly illustrates how we do not value Justice.)

[Navy Patriot]

The problem with a "loser pays" environment is that it will tend to make 'justice' purchasable to the highest bidder.

As if it isn't now.

Marxist unions, Communist "environmentalists", Fascist homosexual and ADA lawyers have all, already purchased not only the law and lawyers, but the judges and the courts themselves, using funds defrauded from the taxpayer and coerced from individuals. The complicit socialist media has provided ignorance in public perception. The days of concern for the wronged little guy needing access to the courts are long gone. The ADA shakedown lawsuits don't require an aggrieved party, all the judgment/settlement (read: shakedown) goes to the lawyers. The "environmentalists" win and continue to present cases even after being caught in perjury and planting "evidence".

Naw, the best thing we could have now is a method of putting frivolous complainants and lawyers in undischargeable debt slavery for life (like students).

...the biggest problem is that as-a-nation we do not value Justice...

You got that right, and in a court of law, you get exactly that, law.

Law and Justice are two completely different things.

[OneWingedShark]

>>The problem with a "loser pays" environment is that it will tend to make 'justice' purchasable to the highest bidder.
>
>As if it isn't now.

What I'm saying is that this 'fix' will make things worse.

>>...the biggest problem is that as-a-nation we do not value Justice...
>
>You got that right, and in a court of law, you get exactly that, law.
>Law and Justice are two completely different things.

Actually no, you do not get the law in a court of law. Allow me to illustrate
In New Mexico there is a statute, NMSA 30-7-2.2, which reads as follows:

30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A.   Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1)   a peace officer;
(2)   university security personnel;
(3)   a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4)   a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5)   a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B.   A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C.    As used in this section:
(1)   "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2)   "university premises" means:
(a)   the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b)   any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D.   Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

This is all well and good, right? No!

The New Mexico State Constitution has the following section:

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

We can now see that NMSA 30-7-2.4 is on its very face contrary to the State's Constitution; remember that this is a State Statute, so private property has no impact on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of this law; but this law is contrary to the State's Constitution and therefore must [logically] be legally void.

(If you wish to see that it is contrary, consider that student housing is indeed a building covered by the statute, therefore a student housed in student housing who has a firearm is in violation of this statute -- assuming the student is a citizen then there is no way to say that such law does not abridge the right to both keep and bear arms... directly violating the underlined portion of the cited Constitution.)

Now, let us turn our attention to the courts themselves. In New Mexico there is no state law which prohibits firearms in the courthouse. Therefore every Municipal and County courthouse which prohibits firearms on the premises is in violation of the italicized portion of the Constitution.

These are simply a small specific set of instances of a larger problem: that the Constitutions of governments are no guarantee to the people who are being governed -- it is as John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- and one of the symptoms of this immorality is not only the lack of justice that we see, but also the impotence of the law.

[Navy Patriot]

You certainly go to a lot of trouble to prove that the "law" is always manipulated to mean what the most powerful want it to mean, and, of course, the (or a) Constitution is.... law.

So, yes, (without disrespect to the Constitution), law and Justice are two completely different things.

I disagree that "fixing" shakedown lawyers will make things worse, as you so carefully document, the law means what the powerful (or the king) say it means, and you get law from a court.

The law is a joke, and every time Congress makes a joke, it's a law.

Ya might have read my tagline.

[longtermmemmory]

I added it. This would put the sanction on par with criminal liability.