Protecting U.S. gun manufacturers from lawsuits, good or bad?

[ExTank]

@Campion

Don’t tell the others, but I think it does.

:rolleyes: Where’s the “Exploding Brain” smiley?

[Campion]

Update:

The first court decision under the new law has come down, according to news reports. All I know is what’s in the news articles, so there may be some gaps.

The suit is pending in New York, in a federal court. The judge made a couple of interesting rulings.

First, according to one report, the judge ruled that the new law is constitutional:

“As construed, the act adequately balances congressional concern over the viability of the handgun industry and the concern of the states and municipalities for the safety of their populations against handgun violence spawned by careless merchandising,” Weinstein wrote.

Second, the New York Times (free registration required) reports that the court found that the new law did not foreclose the lawsuit, which is based on a claim of nuisance:

The judge ruled that the new law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, does not apply to the city’s lawsuit because it falls under a narrow exception that allows lawsuits against the gun makers if their sales or marketing practices violate state or federal statutes.

According to the AP:

The city’s case, which claims that gun suppliers violated public nuisance law by negligently and recklessly marketing its weapons, fell within that exception, Weinstein ruled.

From the same source, the court stayed its ruling to permit an immediate appeal.

[Gfactor]

@Campion

Update:

case (pdf)

Article reviewing the case

[Campion]

For those counting at home, it took Gfactor only 11 minutes to come up with better cites than me.

[Gfactor]

@Gfactor

case (pdf)

Article reviewing the case

:smack: Right judge, wrong case. Ignore last post.

[Clothahump]

@treis

I disagree with giving the gun companies immunity in cases where they sell guns to people that they know or should have known would committ crimes with them. For (a completely made up) example if a person was buying dozens of handguns and reselling them on the street. Its a similar situation to a bar allowing someone that they know or should have known was drunk drive away. There is a duty to ensure that you are not contributing to a crime even if the action you are taking is legal. I have no problem with a company being held civily responsible for actions in these cases.

Gun companies don’t do that. I believe it’s pretty much out of the question to buy a gun directly from the manufacturer. They sell to licensed firearms dealers strictly for liability reasons. I stand to be corrected on this, however.

[Gfactor]

@Campion

For those counting at home, it took Gfactor only 11 minutes to come up with better cites than me.

I was very proud of myself, until I started reading them. Then . . . :o

I’m surprised the case isn’t out there somewhere, but I haven’t been able to find the real one yet.

[Gfactor]

Ok, to make up for my bad links last night, I have copied the decision from the Pacer site and posted the decision on my server.

Three parts. The last is an appendix.

http://www.bbmcwholesale.com/download/New%20York%20v.%20Beretta.pdf
http://www.bbmcwholesale.com/download/New%20York%20v.%20Berettapt2.pdf
http://www.bbmcwholesale.com/download/New%20York%20v.%20Berettaappendix.pdf

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Clothahump

Gun companies don’t do that. I believe it’s pretty much out of the question to buy a gun directly from the manufacturer. They sell to licensed firearms dealers strictly for liability reasons. I stand to be corrected on this, however.

Firearm sales to individuals have to be done via a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder without exception. Some gun clubs and the like will have a common FFL available to members so that they theoretically could purchase directly from a manufacturer; in reality, large manufacturers don’t deal with individual sales or gun stores; they sell to a distributor which handles all the legal paperwork, transportation, logistics, and often the marketing duties as well. The only time gun companies sell to a single buyer is in the case of law enforcement and military sales. Small niche manufacturers like Barrett (manufacturer of .50BMG rifles) might have done direct, individual sales at one time, but they were selling five-figure hand-fitted weapons to enthusiasts, and I defy anyone to demonstrate where someone has used one of these in a drive-by shooting.

It’s true that some unscrupulous manufacturers or their distributors have in the past used some, uh, unfortunate marketing practices, but even with this they still have to sell firearms via the legal channels and with legal intent. If they aren’t, this law will not protect them.

Stranger

[Campion]

@Gfactor

I was very proud of myself, until I started reading them. Then . . . :o

I’m surprised the case isn’t out there somewhere, but I haven’t been able to find the real one yet.

That’s ok. I was so impressed with your skills that I didn’t read them either.

[Gfactor]

Haven’t read the opinion carefully yet, but Weinstein and I do not see eye to eye on the Constitutional issues.

[Sage_Rat]

Looks to me like it says, “Using any non-defective product in the commision of a crime cannot be held against the manufacturer unless the manufacturer sold it knowingly or without following legal procedures to verify that the buyer is a legitimate and honest buyer.”

It doesn’t seem to specify guns nor what legal procedures must be followed to verify the buyer–probably because for some items, like bats, there are none.