sigh…I’ve been talking about the legalities of knowingly supplying arms to irresponsible persons, not the terminology used by a concerned party.
edited to add-if you want to know what they menat by it, we need to see what they filed , I guess.
Either the reseller was authorized (by the government) or not. If they were “irresponsible” by any kind of legal definition, then it was the government’s job to remove said authorization, not the manufacturer’s. And if you don’t know what they meant by “irresponsible” then why did you feel it supported your position?
I never said it did-I have been concentrating on the “knowingly” part of the argument. You know, the part I bolded.
LOL. How does one sell something other than “knowingly”? Without the “irresponsible” part, that’s a total non-argument.
LOL something in that motion caused a unanimous decision to be made, which leads me to believe that the word was sufficiently defined to them.
Which is why I was asking what was meant by it…get it?
I disagree.
15 USC § 7903(5)(A)(iii) of the PLCAA provides that the federal immunity does not apply to “…an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”
The Williams’ complaint clearly alleges that Beemiller and MKS violated the law by selling guns to a purchaser they knew was a strawman for someone ineligible to buy firearms.
If they can show this allegation to be true, then the immunity provisions of the PLCAA don’t apply.
That’s what a trial is for.
True, but any verdict of liability will certainly be agressively challenged, and if it was so sure of a shot, according to the Brady Center, this is the only suit permitted to go forward of it’s kind, that seems to say a lot legally?
Have previous suits made that particular point before?
The article does not mention a figure on similar suits and the past # of suits filed, it just states, to the knowledge of the Brady center, it is the 1st to go forward.
And if this argument is new and valid, then the past history of previous cases that didn’t use it doesn’t really factor in to what will happen with this case.
Now see…that’s what I was asking for. Thanks Bricker. “Known to be ineligible” = useful accusation, “irresponsible” = not-so-much.
We still don’t have even remotely enough info to declare right or wrong here, but as said, that’s what a trial is for. Of course, this is a lawsuit, not a criminal trial, so given the much-relaxed standard of proof, they’re probably screwed.
I actually just skimmed the complaint, but true, due to the degree of “burden of proof” it is kind of a guess what a NEW YORK Jury will do.
The Q is, what ever side the jury decides for, how will an Appeals court handle it?
Q for Bricker. Can such a remand to permit a suit to go forward be appealed to NY’s high court by Interlocutory appeal/Mandamus or such before the original trial court proceeds?
Of course if there is a verdict, it will presumably have come about because the plaintiff adduced evidence to support the claim that laws were broken, and if this was not done, then that will be a fruitful area of challenge.
But THIS ruling just says that the plaintiff properly alleged facts which, if proven, defeat the PLCAA’s immunity.
Previous suits have not generally claimed either manufacturers or sellers broke the law. Instead, they have alleged that the sale of guns was itself an activity that created a foreseeable risk of harm. The PLCAA foreclosed this line of argument.
I don’t agree. The plaintiff still must show by preponderance of the evidence that the sellers knew the purchasers were strawmen. That requires more than just bare allegation.
I don’t have any special insight into New York’s civil procedure, but this decision can probably be appealed as is. If it isn’t, then I would doubt it would later be an issue for interlocutory appeal; once it gets to trial, defendant’s remedy for a failure of proof is a motion for directed verdict at close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief or a JNOV after an adverse jury decision, and then a direct appeal if those are denied.
How about the company responsible for Love Canal? If Cracked is to believed Hooker Chemicals did everything correct and the school district was the fucktards who were going to take the land if Hooker didn’t sell. And so of course it was the chemical company that paid out on the multi-million dollar lawsuits.