Yes. The U.S., of course, would be under no obligation to comply with that extradition request, just as Canada was under no obligation to extradite its bootleggers during Prohibition and Colombia was under no obligation to extradite Pablo Escobar.
As for the rest of your post, you’re quite right that jurisdiction is a key concept here. If World-Wide Volkswagen had sufficient contacts with Oklahoma, then it could have been sued in Oklahoma for manufacturing the allegedly defective vehicle. But jurisdiction and choice of law are two different inquiries. WWVW got out of that lawsuit because it wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of Oklahoma courts, not because New York law should have been applied instead of Oklahoma’s. And if you can’t be haled into a state’s courts because it doesn’t have jurisdiction, you obviously don’t havea real great incentive to behave in accordance with that state’s substantive laws.
If the mfr. intentionally directed his activities to enable purchasers to avoid NY’s laws, then he could indeed have NY law applied to him. That does not, however, answer the question of whether the mfr. would be subject to jurisdiction in NY. Separate inquiries, really.
No jurisdiction imposes liability for such conduct. Even if it did, there would be obvious problems under the federal constitution that would prevent such a law from being enforced. Moreover, the manufacturers in the NAACP case were not being sued for “evading” NY law; they were being sued for intentionally directing their products towards that jurisdiction in alleged violation of NY law.
No, in that case you’ve commited an act of conspiracy (in this case to murder someone), not an act of murder.
If I sell you scissors, and you murder someone with them it ain’t my fault. If I sell you a gun, and you take it somewhere where it’s illegal, that ain’t my fault either.
Seriously, when did we start passing the buck in this country and stop taking responsibility for our own actions?
No, in that case you’ve commited an act of conspiracy (in this case to murder someone), not an act of murder.
If I sell you scissors, and you murder someone with them it ain’t my fault. If I sell you a gun, and you take it somewhere where it’s illegal, that ain’t my fault either.
Seriously, when did we start passing the buck in this country and stop taking responsibility for our own actions?
Depends on state law. In Texas, there ain’t no such thing as “conspiracy to commit murder” or anything like that. A defendant is guilty of the ultimate crime, not “conspiracy,” if “acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attemps to aid the other person to commit the offense.” Tex. Pen. Code § 7.02(a)(2); see also § 7.01.
Gee, that was the same thing I was wondering. Since when is it acceptable to knowingly assist others in break the laws of the states where they live merely by providing that assistance in another state? I swear, this country is being ruined by you liberals and your complete disregard for personal responsibility.
I think this misstates the question. Obviously, any one country can ask the other to extradite anyone for any halfassed reason they want to, and the second country can just tell the first to get bent. By “reasonable” I meant to imply that the extradition request would have some principled basis for enforcement under international law principles. As it stands, it seems to me that international extradition is pretty darned ad hoc, based more on the somewhat-arbitrary agreements between diplomats than on any firm legal principle. **
I understand the distinction. One wonders, though: say I’m a gun manufacturer in Virginia with no sales or other business outside of that state – no minimum contacts whatsoever. Thus, the New York courts don’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. But the Virginia courts do. Assuming I’m selling a metric assload of guns in Virginia, could the NAACP thus sue me in the Virginia courts on a theory that I’m violating New York law (because the guns eventually show up there), and have New York law apply? To what extent would the Virginia courts be obligated to apply New York law in such a case?
That’s a serious inquiry, BTW – this kind of thing is pretty far removed from my practice area. Outside of sticking a boilerplate choice of law/forum selection clause after negotiating which state’s law/courts are preferred, I have very little exposure to this stuff. I’m not sure how these things are resolved in a noncontract situation. **
Oh come now, surely you can find something. No one thought that products liability could be argued for a product that worked exactly as advertised, but that didn’t stop other gun opponents from suing on those grounds. Since when have things like “established law” stopped the plaintiff’s bar? **
A better example, one that avoids pesky interstate issues. Many localities in the US are “dry,” barring the sale of alcholic beverages. Of course, for those localities the residents who want to booze it up just go over to the next county to load up on Shiner. Could a dry county sue the taverns and liquor stores in a neighboring county on a public nusiance theory similar to the one advanced by the NAACP (e.g., you sell more booze than the market for your county, people drive drunk and get into all sorts of trouble when they come back stinking into the dry county, etc.)? Could they also sue the liquor manufacturers on that theory?
And, more to the point, should they be able to do so?
Should we go after lockpick manufactuers because a certain percentage of their product will be used for criminal purposes? Does failure to do so amount to “disregard for personal responsibility”?
I would expect an organization devoted to handgun restrictions like the Brady’s to advocate a position like this. However, it doesn’t make any sense for the NAACP to. It can only hurt them.
Huh?
Are you are trying to insult me by comparing me to Charlton Heston?
Look, black people are what? 13% of the population of the US, IIRC. So, if they want to advance their agenda then they will need some support from the other 87% of people. It just doesn’t make sense for them to start picking stances on any issues that aren’t directly related to their agenda of advancing colored people.
Just like the NRA would lose members and support and respect if it took a position on abortion, socialized medicine or any other issues that don’t have anything to do with gun control. Regardless of which side of the issues they take, it is bound to insult some members one way or the other. It’s a bad idea.
Ah, but now you’re talking about something akin to comity. That is, is the law a foreign jurisdiction seeks to enforce through extradition worthy of being recognized as sufficient basis for extradition in the jurisdiction where the defendant is located? Once again, that’s a separate concern from the question of whether the defendant can be charged/sued in the jurisdiction where he directs his conduct from afar.
Your hypothetical Falun Gong supporter in America should of course defend himself from extradition on free speech/religion grounds, and the U.S. courts should tell the Chinese government to go get bent. But the hypothetical guy in America would not be able to defend himself on grounds that his conduct occurred only in America if he intentionally directed that conduct towards China. Really, that just gets back to my shootin’ an Okie from across the Red River example.
Possibly, depending on the circumstances. You have to look at the particular cause of action being alleged, of course, so that makes it difficult to speak in generalities. But let’s say that the claim is simple negligence, based on the unreasonable sale of a dangerous weapon to a person unqualified to own it. If you sell that gun to a convicted felon, knowing that he intends to take it back to his home in New York, you could well have New York tort law apply to you even in the Virginia courts if the buyer whacks some guy in Brooklyn. It’s likely to be Virginia law that applies, since all your conduct occurred there, but knowledge that the risk of harm would fall in New York may lead the court to apply New York law.
Depends. Choice of law analysis is extremely complex, and each state applies its own analysis to determine which state’s law applies in a given case. The Supreme Court has unfortunately declined to place much in the way of limits on how the choice of applicable law is made, so long as the courts do not automatically apply the laws of their own forum to cases implicating multiple forums. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985).
If the state’s law recognizes a cause of action for such conduct, they could indeed be sued.
Do what? Sue on a stupid, but recognized, cause of action? Absolutely. You don’t get to hide from the consequences of your tortious conduct directed towards a particular jurisdiction merely because your actions occurred in another jurisdiction.
Yes, if they negligently market their products to thieves.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Debaser *
How does gun control advance colored people?[/qyuote]By getting less of them killed.
Obviously, they disagree with you. So what’s your beef with what they choose to advocate? Do us all the courtesy of taking on the merits of their position, not pointlessly sniping them for having a position at all.
A sarcastic note that your blanket statement about “everyday folks like me who are not black” sounds remarkably like the ignorant statements of a certain Mr. Heston made in a recent documentary you may have heard about.
Does Jim Brady count? I don’t think he’s black. I’m reasonably sure there are one or two other white folk who lean towards gun control.
As the judge noted even while dismissing their claim, black folk do “suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York.” They were, in other words, attempting to “advance colored people” by getting fewer of them killed.
I’m glad to hear you have only the NAACP’s best interests at heart. Perhaps you could write a letter to Mr. Mfume and advise him that his organization has gone whack, and that he’s risking the all-important support of white male conservatives?
How does a gun dealer who receives proper identification, correctly filled out applications and an approval number from NICS know that the gun will be transported at some later date, possibly after it’s been stolen by some thug, across a state line?
Or do you just assume he’s telepathic, minty green?
No, I just assume the dealer is not a complete moron when a guy with a New York driver’s license and address purchases a truckload of handguns. Hear no evil, see no evil, eh catsix?
I guess what I’m getting at is this: do you really think the argument that buying a few extra kegs of Shiner is an act “directed” towards a particular jurisdiction has merit?
More to the point: why should Dry County’s policy trump Wet County? Wet County thinks goin’ out drinkin’ is just fine. Why should Dry County’s more restrictive worldview control activities in Wet County? Why should they get to say, basically, “you guys in Wet County are servin’ too much booze”? **
That’s a mighty big “if.” I can go online and buy a complete lockpick set right now, and no one will make the slightest inquiry into my background. Negligence on the part of lockpick makers?
The rest of your post was mighty informative. Thanks. I even dug out my New York bar exam outlines to refresh my memory on choice of law rules (a minor tested topic).
This is snarky, but unresponsive. The plaintiffs aren’t saying that New Yorkers are coming down to the south to purchase guns in vast quantity; they’re saying individuals in the south are buying the guns and then taking them up north. And catsix’s question is perfectly legitimate: how is a dealer supposed to know what will happen with a gun after it leaves his shop?
What do you mean by “merit”? If you’re talking about a cause of action based on that act, then it’s stupid and meritless from a policy standpoint. If you’re talking about whether a particular plaintiff can recover on that cause of action if it is recognized under the law of the relevant jurisdiction, then the lawsuit may well have merit.
It doesn’t. Dry County imposes liability for activities directed towards it that occur in Wet County. If the fine, upstanding liquor salesmen of Wet County don’t direct their activities to Dry County, then there can be no liability.
Yes, I know. I assumed you would understand it as such.
Actually, I believe the plaintiffs are saying that gun manufacturers are intentionally making large quantities of firearms available in less-restrictive states for the purpose of enabling persons from more-restrictive jurisdictions to purchase weapons forbidden to them under state and local laws, whether through direct purchases or straw sales or whatever.
Any particular gun? That, of course, would be silly (though general negligence rules would still apply, e.g., don’t sell any guns to known nutjobs or criminals). But when you’re talking about an intentional strategy of marketing to customers who are not able to purchase guns under their local laws, you only have to show that the dealer knew or should have known that some of his sales pursuant to that marketing plan would end up in places and hands where they weren’t supposed to be.
You know full well that those sales are already illegal and that any FFL who was submitting a BATF 4473 from Virgina on a bunch of NY state residents for handguns would lose his ass faster than he could say NICS.
What I want to know is why it can be assumed that because a large amount of guns are sold to wholesalers and dealers in Virginia and bought by Virginia residents in legal sales, you assume the dealer bears responsibility for any Virginian who later transfers the gun to NY or is the victim of a robbery in which it is stolen and then transferred to NY.
So, you got an answer for that, or do you really expect the wholesaler and the dealer in VA to be clairvoyant?
Is there any concrete evidence whatsoever that this is at all true? So far someone has mentioned that, only by memory with no cite available, one gun manfacturer might have said something at some point about flooding the market.
There is some evidence of this intentional strategy, isn’t there minty? Because until some is provided, this wonderful theory you have is just as wonderful as believing that unicorn blood will keep Lord Voldemort alive forever. Without evidence, without proof, it’s nothing more than a fantasy of the NAACP’s, and having read your posts in this thread, yours as well.
The state of Libertaria decriminalizes crack cocaine. Any adult can walk on into the shop of any state-licensed dealer and purchase as much crack as his heart desires.
The neighboring state of Freedonia, like every other state in the nation, outlaws the sale and and use of crack. Like many other jurisdictions, Freedonia also has a statute that makes drug dealers liable for the harm proximately caused by their products.
Joe Crackhead, a resident of Freedonia, travels to Libertaria to purchase a truckload of crack. Joe drives right up to Crazy Carl’s Crack Emporium, a licensed crack dealer just across the state line in Libertaria. Crazy Carl located his Crack Emporium on the border with Freedonia because he intended to capture as many sales as possible from residents of Freedonia. Joe produces his Freedonia driver’s license to Crazy Carl to prove that he is above the legal age to puchase crack. Satisfied that the sale is legal under Libertarian law, the Crazy Carl backs up the forklift to Joe’s car and fills 'er to the rim with Grade-A crack.
Joe Crackhead then drives back to Freedonia, firing up the crack pipe all the way home. Tragically, the high-quality crack causes Joe to o.d. while he’s behind the wheel, and the vehicle crashes into a car carrying the Smith family, who are on their way to church. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are killed, while their daughter Sally is permanently paralyzed and little baby Bobby is left without any parents.
Do Sally and Bobby have any cause of action against Crazy Carl? Or are they s.o.l. because, as you apparently insist, that would infringe on Libertaria’s right to set its standards as low as it wants and Crazy Carl’s right to do whatever he damn well pleases that is within the law of his own jurisdiction?
Yeah, yeah, whatever. That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether one state’s laws can apply to conduct occurring in another jurisdiction, but directed toward the first state.
I assume nothing. If, however, there is evidence that your sainted firearms dealers–who, as everyone knows, are uniformly above reproach and consistently conscientious in all of their transactions–actually did intentionally direct their guns towards bad guys in other jurisdictions through straw sales and such, then to hell with them when they get sued by somebody who got hurt by one of their guns in another state.
**