Jury: Gun Industry Not Cause of Violence

ASSOCIATED PRESS ^ | May 14, 2003 at 12:46:56 PDT | TOM HAYS

[Hugin]

NEW YORK (AP) - In a victory for the gun industry, a jury found Wednesday that 45 handgun manufacturers and distributors were not responsible for fueling violence in minority communities through their marketing practices.

The jury deliberated for five days before reaching its verdict in a closely watched case that now goes to the judge for a final decision. The panel was unable to reach a verdict regarding 23 other defendants in the case.

Because U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role, both sides in the case will submit written arguments interpreting the verdict within 30 days. The judge will then make the final determination on liability and remedy.

The verdict followed more than five weeks of testimony in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's lawsuit against 68 defendants, including Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock Inc. and other major gun makers and distributors.

The jury found Glock and Colt Manufacturing - two major gun makers - not liable. It did not reach a decision on Smith & Wesson.

The NAACP lawsuit alleged the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying their products to criminals in minority communities, and did nothing to stop it. Rather than monetary damages, it sought to force distributors to restrict sales to dealers who have storefront outlets, prohibit sales to gun show dealers and limit individual purchasers to one handgun a month.

The defendants and industry trade groups argued that it was unfair and unlawful to hold manufacturers liable for the criminal use of a legal product. They also said that legislatures - not courts - should set standards for sales.

[Hugin]

Another win for the good guys.

[tracer]

It would be only fair if the NAACPlaintiff were directed to pay court costs and the legal expenses of the defendants.

Perhaps then donors of this socialist cabal that has been ripping off black folks for decades will realize that their money would be better spent elsewhere....

[Joe Brower]

[Eric in the Ozarks]

That's almost too much to hope for.

[blau993]

Don't get too excited about this. The jury verdict is not binding, and Judge Weinstein is the epitome of the liberal activist judge. I would not put it past him to ignore the jury entirely.

[m1911]

Not a win yet. The jury is only advisory, and the judge has already sent this on up to be quashed by a higher court once, IIRC.

[jdege]

This was an "advisory" jury.

Watch the judge find for the plaintiffs, anyway.

[facedown]

"Another win for the good guys."

The judge will then make the final determination on liability and remedy.

Ruh roh. Not so fast. IINM this guy is very anti-gun.

[Mr. Lucky]

The perfect irony will be if Smith & Wesson is the only gun manufacturer to be found culpable.

[rellimpank]

--yeah--what's this "advisory" jury thing?--I must have missed that in Civics in spring of '58--

[45Auto]

Another example of just how screwed up the judiciary is. If this socialist judge completely ignores the jury, setting himself up as the petty little dictator that he seems to be, then its a slam-dunk to be reversed upon appeal.

[VoiceOfBruck]

The NAACP lawsuit alleged the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying their products to criminals in minority communities, and did nothing to stop it.

If this allegation is true, then the culprits are the corrupt dealers, and they should be padlocked. I get the feeling that (1) this is not the case, and (2) the NAACP really doesn't care about this anyway. God forbid we should actually solve a problem.

[chainsaw]

Because U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role,

I have never heard of jury playing an advisory role. I'm not a legal person, but what is the sense of having a jury if their decision can be over ridden by a judge.

[archy]

Bang Ping!

[Yo-Yo]

[B]ut what is the sense of having a jury if their decision can be over ridden by a judge.

You've heard of jury nullification? This is a case of Liberal Judge nullification.

[Hugin]

I realize this is an "advisory jury" though I have never heard of such a thing before. I have heard of judges setting aside verdicts if they determined the jury did not follow the law in deciding the case. Anyway, it's still a win IMHO if not the final word. I agree with 45Auto that if the judge overrides the jury and finds for the NAALCP the appeals court will overturn it. Probably they would even if the jury had ruled for the plaintiffs, but I would guess the judge would need a much more compelling case to do so now that the jury has found for the defendants. I don't know this judge, but even if he is anti-gun, no judge wants to send up a verdict that he thinks will probably be overturned on appeal. It doesn't look good on his resume. Probably especially true if he overrules the jury.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

The N.A.A.C.P. can lick the dust from our liberty loving boots. I love good news.

[blau993]

Don't confuse this with the notion of a judge "setting aside" a jury's verdict in a case tried by a jury (sometimes called a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict"). In that case, the judge is not supposed to base his ruling on an interpretation of the facts that differs from the jury's interpretation. Rather, the judge finds as a matter of law that he has to rule a certain way despite the jury's findings. The rules provide for a very strict standard of review of the judge's decision when he does that. What we have in this case is something entirely different.

Advisory juries are not common, but the rules governing civil trials in the federal courts do permit a judge to appoint an advisory jury either upon request of the parties or on his or her own initiative. The jury's "verdict" is not binding on the judge, although generally when a judge has gone to the trouble to appoint an advisory jury, he will not lightly disregard what the jury has to say.

That said, the judge in this case is Jack Weinstein. He is a crusty old SOB with a mind and an agenda of his own. If he decides he wants to ignore the advisory jury's finding, he will do it, and he won't care one iota whether or not the Second Circuit reverses him. The Second Circuit, by the way, is one of the more liberal federal circuits (it ain't the Ninth, but it is up there). If Weinstein were to find against the gun manufacturers, it would not be a foregone conclusion that they would reverse him. A lot would depend on the makeup of the three judge panel that would hear the appeal.

[Area51]

How about a graphic from the Movie Independence Day, where the Old Drunk Pilot is just a second away from running his Jet into the underside Opening where their laser type weapon discharged from...

IIRC the comment he made was "UP YOURS!!!!!!!!"