Posted on 05/10/2011 6:36:41 AM PDT by pabianice
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the only cases to reach appellate court arising from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2006 civil lawsuits against out-of-state firearms retailers that interfered with as many as 18 ongoing criminal investigations.
Not surprisingly, Mayor Bloomberg filed those cases in federal district court in Brooklyn, N.Y., before his handpicked judge, Jack B. Weinstein.
While the appellate court ruled the defendants’ strategy of avoiding the charade of a “trial” before Judge Weinstein where the outcome would be a forgone conclusion resulted in their waiver and forfeiture of jurisdictional defenses, Judge Richard Wesley wrote a scathing concurring opinion rebuking Judge Weinstein’s made-up “firearms industry” personal jurisdiction jurisprudence.
Our industry has long complained that Judge Weinstein has twisted the law on personal jurisdiction and violated the constitutional rights of members of our industry in order to assert his control over how firearms are sold and marketed throughout the United States, usurping the constitutional role of congress and state legislatures.
Finally, after more than 15 years of Weinstein dragging members of the firearms industry into his courtroom based on his unique, industry-specific personal jurisdiction jurisprudence, someone on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has had an opportunity to expose Judge Weinstein’s improper and unconstitutional analysis used to advance his attack on our industry.
Weinstein’s attack — aided by trial lawyers financed by the likes of George Soros, gun control groups and anti-gun politicians like mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg — began in 1995 with a case called Hamilton. The Hamilton case was ultimately unsuccessful and dismissed.
Judge Wesley was at the time a member of the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in New York) when he wrote the Hamilton v Beretta U.S.A. decision (personal jurisdiction was not an issue in the appeal) that members of the firearms industry are not liable for the harm caused by the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms.
Judge Wesley’s concurring opinion last week validates our industry’s long-standing objections. We only wish it had it come 15 years earlier. Hopefully the days of members of our industry being improperly dragged into Judge Weinstein’s courtroom are behind us.
Reminding us all that Giuliani is not a friend to the 2nd Amendment.
I’m beginning to think there should be some legal mechanism to receive compensation for the defendants suffering under improper legal decisions that are later overturned because they were based on judicial abuse of office.
The same politicans willing to ignore the Constitution in a (pointless and ineffective) ploy to keep “guns off the streets” seem to have no desire to keep illegal immigrant criminals off the streets...or OUT OF THE DAMN COUNTRY.
--it appears to me that the defendants (the firearms industry) lost--or could someone translate this from legalese so I understand it better?
--I do get it that the the infamous Weinstein was "rebuked"--
Reading the actual decision now.
Defendant won, on appeal, on different grounds.
The Circuit Court had harsh words for Weinstein's creation of a new cause of legal action.
The good news for US (NOT defendants) is that they lost due to not defending themselves properly. I think the clients didn't want to spend the required amount of money to fight this properly at all levels. You can't "appear" and then "withdraw" and expect to win on a collateral attack. That was what I gather to be their tactic. It didn't work. Translation from legalese - If you appeal a case, the defenses used in appeal must be fought in district court.
However, the injunction itself could be appealed de novo (must easier standard), and it was successfully appealed. The injunction wasn't specific enough and also was too restrictive beyond the claims in NYC's lawsuit. The Special Master had WAY too much power as well, according to the court. Basically, there has to be a new injunction.
It's too bad the defendants couldn't afford or chose not to fight the whole thing. I think they would have won if they did so.
Preferably from the jurist in question till homeless and impoverished, and only then any from the taxpayers.
—thanks—had it pretty much figured out.
—I am somewhat of the family “barracks lawyer” but when it gets into appeals or Latin , I’m lost-—
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.