Appeals court affirms dismissal of state's lawsuit against gun makers

NEW YORK -- A Manhattan appeals court Tuesday affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit in which the state accused gun makers of knowingly contributing to the "flood of illegal guns" in New York that result in injuries or death.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court found 3-1 that it was "legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic" to require the gun makers to take unspecified steps to lessen the availability and criminal use of handguns.

"State Supreme Court Justice Louis York ruled Aug. 10, 2001, that Spitzer had presented insufficient evidence to support his claim that nine gun manufacturers, 12 wholesalers and three importers had violated the state's public nuisance law.

York, finding the state's case failed to link the gun industry directly to the public nuisance, wrote, "it is obvious that the parties most directly responsible for the unlawful use of handguns are the individuals who unlawfully use them."

Yes, finally logic and sound reasoning.

Bumper stickers have stated this most obvious analysis more crudely for years: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

From the Ithaca Journal-State Briefs( http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20030625/localnews/538403.html ):

Court affirms gun lawsuit decision

NEW YORK -- A Manhattan appeals court Tuesday affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit in which the state accused gun makers of knowingly contributing to the "flood of illegal guns" in New York that result in injuries or death.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court found 3-1 that it was "legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic" to require the gun makers to take unspecified steps to lessen the availability and criminal use of handguns.

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued members of the gun industry in 2001. He alleged that they had created a public nuisance by knowingly distributing firearms in a way that put large numbers of guns in the hands of people who use them illegally.

"Defendants know that a significant portion of their guns become crime guns but turn a blind eye so as to increase profits, at the cost of many human lives and much human suffering," Spitzer said in his original complaint.

State Supreme Court Justice Louis York ruled Aug. 10, 2001, that Spitzer had presented insufficient evidence to support his claim that nine gun manufacturers, 12 wholesalers and three importers had violated the state's public nuisance law.

York, finding the state's case failed to link the gun industry directly to the public nuisance, wrote, "it is obvious that the parties most directly responsible for the unlawful use of handguns are the individuals who unlawfully use them."

"We agree and affirm," the appeals judges wrote.

They said the defendants were engaged in "the lawful manufacture, marketing and sale of a defect-free product in a highly regulated activity far removed from the downstream, unlawful use of handguns."

*****

From news service reports.

The appeals judges said it would be impractical for the courts to try to regulate the gun industry. The legislative and executive branches of government might be "better suited to address the societal problems" at issue in this case, the appellate majority wrote.

Juanita Scarlett, a spokeswoman for Spitzer, said, "We believe that the court misapplied certain doctrinal principles. We are considering an appeal."

Lawyers for the gun manufacturers could not be reached by telephone for comment.

Spitzer's lawsuit was similar to one brought in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The civil rights group alleged that gun makers knew corrupt dealers were selling firearms to criminals in minority communities and did nothing to stop it.

The NAACP 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.

A trial of the NAACP suit ended in May. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein is pending

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.