Attempted Undermining of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ~ Williams v. Beemiller

Ammoland ^ | 12 May, 2019 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The New York Supreme Court recently ruled that a man shot by a gang member did not have standing to sue the retailer that legally sold the gun.  The court has been winding its tortuous way through the process for over a decade. Williams was shot in 2005.

Williams v. Beemiller is about injuries sustained from an assault committed by a New York High School gang on an innocent bystander, who was mistaken for a member of an opposition gang. Daniel Williams was shot and injured. High school gang members do not have lots of assets.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence seems to have agreed to help Williams sue the gun seller, the wholesaler, and the manufacturer of the pistol, looking for deep pockets.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit as being outlawed by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, (PLCAA).  The PLCAA was passed to prevent gun manufacturers or dealers from being sued when people misused the firearms they legally made or sold. The purpose was to prevent lawsuits of manufacturers and dealers for the criminal deeds of others.

The appeals court made the claim the case might belong to an exception to the PLCAA, where a manufacturer or wholesaler knowingly illegally sells guns. In 2012, Law & Liberty summed up the case. From lawliberty.org in 2012:

[marktwain]

The claim is that guns are dangerous by themselves, so manufacturers should be liable for the guns existence.

[Skywise]

What if the gang used a car?

Can we sue car manufacturers if I get intentionally run into by a car that was illegally sold? Obviously the manufacturer is culpable.

This lawsuit is frivolous on its face and should be summarily dismissed with prejudice and the Brady organization pay punitive fines.

[SunkenCiv]

The New York Supreme Court recently ruled that a man shot by a gang [in 2005] member did not have standing to sue the retailer that legally sold the gun.

[Yo-Yo]

The Law Liberty article link is interesting.

Here is the story. The gun manufacture Beemiller makes a line of relatively inexpensive guns under the brand Hi Point. Plaintiff was shot with a Hi Point pistol. As is typical in the industry, the manufacture sold that gun directly to a distributor. The distributor then sold the gun to a federally licensed retail dealer named Brown located in Ohio. Brown is alleged to have knowingly engaged in illegal straw sales to Nigel Bostic, who was prohibited from purchasing firearms. A straw purchaser (legally permitted to buy the guns) allegedly filled out the paper work and paid cash for guns selected by Bostic. In a series of straw transactions Bostic allegedly acquired more than 80 guns with the intent of selling them illegally back in New York. One of those guns was used in the shooting of Daniel Williams, a high school student in Buffalo, who was mistaken for a rival gang member.

Straight forward application of the PLCAA typically would preclude a suit against the manufacturer in a case like this. In the typical case there is an arm’s length business relationship between the gun maker, who sells to wholesale distributors, who in turn sell to retail dealers who sell to consumers in accordance with the instant background check and other requirments of the Gun Control Act. The point of the PLCAA was that a gun maker, in compliance with all of the laws for making and selling a firearm should not be sued when the gun is used in a way that breaks the law.

The novel thing in the Williams case is the complaint alleges the maker of Hi Point guns, sells only to a single exclusive distributor, MKS Supply. Nothing inherently worrisome so far. But here is thing. MKS Supply, allegedly is controlled by a man named Brown (currently the president of MKS supply says the Complaint). Mr. Brown is also the federally licensed firearms dealer who allegedly sold 87 guns to the straw purchaser, including the gun that was to shoot Daniel Williams.

So the question is, did Hi Point know that their exclusive distributor was making straw sales of their firearms? How would Hi Point, which would have sold thousands, if not tens of thousands of guns wholesale to MKS distributing, who would then sell them to licensed retailers, know that MKS was also dealing in low volume straw sales?

[marktwain]

So the question is, did Hi Point know that their exclusive distributor was making straw sales of their firearms? How would Hi Point, which would have sold thousands, if not tens of thousands of guns wholesale to MKS distributing, who would then sell them to licensed retailers, know that MKS was also dealing in low volume straw sales?

The lawsuit does not say they knew. It says they should have known.

The anti-Second Amendment types try to make the argument that there should not be any guns without very strict government oversight and control.

[Calvin Locke]

What if the gang used a car?

I got called for jury duty, but not picked.

The case that ended up needing jurors was a civil suit in a car accident. Some public utilities employee was involved a company vehicle, and the plaintiff was suing the employee, the utility, the car lessor to the utility, and the bank that wrote the paper on the lease.

I assumed the employee had a valid license.

Good thing the jury was filled before they got to me...

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If someone kills someone else with his bare fists then sue the mother for manufacturing those fists.

[yoe]

Will the bow maker be responsible for the arrow finding its way into a neighbor's yard chair...that he happens to be sitting on.....or the skier who accidentally loses a ski on the ski slope and it travels alone and hurts or kills another skier, or the ladder or the jump rope or the hammer, or the swing......those arguments are pipe dreams of people who want to control people....good luck!

[gundog]

No gun manufacturer ever built a loaded gun.

[Does so]

In Florida, that’s the civil law. “Jointly and severally” is the term. Silly, but that’s how lawyers conjured up the law.

[TigersEye]

The claim is that guns are dangerous by themselves,...

So are cars, circular saws, five gallon buckets, ...

[Hugh the Scot]

...ideas ...

[TigersEye]

Very dangerous ... from the very start.

Imagine how many cavemen received 3rd degree burns
trying to work out that make-your-own-fire thing.
All of them deprived of their right to free health care.

The Federal government must ban or highly regulate ideas.

[Hugh the Scot]

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
-Stalin

[Svartalfiar]

So the question is, did Hi Point know that their exclusive distributor was making straw sales of their firearms? How would Hi Point, which would have sold thousands, if not tens of thousands of guns wholesale to MKS distributing, who would then sell them to licensed retailers, know that MKS was also dealing in low volume straw sales?

Well, Did Brown/MKS know that they were selling to a straw purchaser? Was Brown selling these himself as a FFL, or were they sold out of MKS? Does MKS have a shop they sell to the public? Or was the straw purchase the ONLY non-retailer sales that MKS made? If it was only Brown/not through MKS, how did he acquire the firearms from MKS? Were they excess inventory he 'acquired', or did he purchase them from the distributor as a FFL shop retailer? Did they straw purchase all 87 firearms at the same time / short timeframe? All from Brown or through MKS direct? Or was this over several years/multiple locations?

I find it highly unlikely that HiPoint/BeeMiller can get hit on this, unless there's hard evidence showing they knew or were complicit. "Should have known" someone in the pyramid below them was doing something small, is a really dumb argument. MKS may even be free of anything if Brown was doing this on his own out of his garage-shop FFL.