NY Court’s Decision in Gun-Liability Case Described as Groundbreaking

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 10/12/12 | Sam Favate

[AtlasStalled]

A decision last week by a New York State appellate court to reinstate a gun liability lawsuit is being held up as a landmark by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. * * * A lower court had tossed the case, based on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that protects gun manufacturers and sellers. But the appeals court held that the law, which was signed by President George W. Bush, doesn’t provide immunity to gun companies that illegally supply gun traffickers or irresponsible dealers, Reuters noted.

[Jewbacca]

Other states can play at this sort of thing, too, and start targeting NY state business for litigation.

[MPJackal]

Well if ATF gives a dealer a license to sell, and they turn out to be unreputable, isn’t that ATF’s fault?

[Repeal 16-17]

But the appeals court held that the law, which was signed by President George W. Bush, doesn’t provide immunity to gun companies that illegally supply gun traffickers or irresponsible dealers

In New York, anybody who supplies a firearm to any party other than the government is considered to be "irresponsible". This ruling is in defiance of federal law, so any damages awarded because of it should be ignored by the gun companies.

[battlecry]

Manufacturers should do what Barret did and stop selling or maintaining firearms to all LEOs in NYS.

[battlecry]

I wasn’t clear, Barrett acted against CA, but you get the idea.

[SkyDancer]

I’ll go along with it when the same court uses the same law for cars.

[Ratman83]

I will go with it when the use the same rules for the police and government.

[petro45acp]

If remembering this particular case, the company in question is Hi-Point Arms. A start-up/phoenix company that makes some pretty low end firearms. Quality notwithstanding, they should still be protected (and maybe a bit of self-policing to keep the number of back-door builds down). Not everyone can afford an M&P/Glock/1911/SA-XDM/etc., but everyone is covered by the Second Amendment.

Maybe, if some of the law abiding folk were armed, fewer predators would consider is a simple matter to knock down a civilian.

The Hi-Point carbines look pretty interesting....

[Roccus]

Anyone injured by a NYS licensed motorist who is breaking the law at the time of said injury (DUI, running red light, speeding, etc) should now be able to sue NYS for licensing irresponsible motorists.

[11th Commandment]

Sounds to me under this ruling the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT via AFT and FAST and FURIOUS has a big liability.

[neverdem]

BTTT!

[B4Ranch]

GOVERNMENT federal, state or municipal is “the people”. That’s why it is so rare that they give permission to sue them.

Ever heard the saying, “The people have the government they deserve”? The rest of it is, “Step forward, stand up with the truth, or step aside, to let “The people have the government they deserve”.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks AtlasStalled.

...to reinstate a gun liability lawsuit is being held up as a landmark by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

[Brad from Tennessee]

What about the distillers, the brewers, the makers of pharmaceutical narcotics? Where does it end?

[1010RD]

The confluence of bad laws, bad judges and bad thinking is the effluence of liberalism.

[W. W. SMITH]

Nonprofits that make endless runs at subverting the constitution should loose their non profit status, be labeled subversive and receive little or no consideration from government entities, judicial or legislative.

[headstamp 2]

“What about the distillers, the brewers, the makers of pharmaceutical narcotics? Where does it end?”

It doesn’t.

[Lazamataz]

Sounds to me under this ruling the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT via AFT and FAST and FURIOUS has a big liability.

Wonderful point. Shout out to Trav on this great 'political judo'.

[TribalPrincess2U]

that illegally supply gun traffickers or irresponsible dealers??

Isn’t that what Fast and Furious was?