Gun Suits to proceed (New Jersey judges at it again)

[1Old Pro]

» More From The Star-Ledger

New Jersey

Newark gun-violence suit advances

Appeals court sees possible link between makers and results, refuses to dismiss action

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

BY RUDY LARINI
Star-Ledger Staff

The firearms industry suffered a setback in New Jersey yesterday in its effort to fend off lawsuits by cities and counties seeking compensation for costs associated with gun violence.

A state appeals court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Newark against gun manufacturers and dealers, allowing that case and two other lawsuits by Camden and Jersey City to proceed to trial.

Gun control advocates said the ruling was especially significant because it contradicts the legal reasoning of a ruling last year by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that dismissed a suit against gun makers brought by Camden County.

The three-judge panel that issued yesterday's decision concluded that the federal court's analysis "does not fit squarely" with the way New Jersey courts traditionally have interpreted state law.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun manufacturers' trade association, said it was considering whether to appeal the latest ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The foundation also called for passage of legislation introduced in Congress last week that would grant the gun industry immunity from lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence, as well as cities and counties.

Newark, Camden and Jersey City are among more than 30 cities and counties nationwide that have sued an array of gun manufacturers and dealers, seeking compensation for law enforcement, medical and other costs that they contend result from gun violence.

Newark Mayor Sharpe James hailed yesterday's appellate court ruling for allowing "Newark and other New Jersey cities to move forward with litigation against the gun manufacturers, who should be held accountable.

"Throughout this country we have witnessed the atrocities -- the murders, maiming and injuries -- inflicted by the illegal use of guns," the mayor said. "Manufacturers must be made to provide safety locks on their weapons. They must be involved in insuring that dealers, distributors and sellers are properly screened and are not selling weapons to young people and individuals with criminal records."

Newark's lawsuit, filed in June 1999, claims gun manufacturers have negligently oversupplied the area with weapons, provided misleading information about their danger and failed to equip them with safety devices, such as trigger locks.

The lawsuit also accused gun makers of failing to supervise distributors, leading to sales on the illegal market.

In the Camden County case, the federal courts accepted the gun industry's argument that harm caused by gun violence is "too remote" from the conduct of manufacturers and dealers to warrant damage claims against them.

But the New Jersey court said it does not seem "highly extraordinary" for the city to claim that the gun manufacturers' "alleged purposeful or negligent 'feeding' of guns to an illegal secondary gun market through their manufacturing, advertising and distribution scheme would yield the criminal use of the firearms in Newark..."

Yesterday's ruling follows similar decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court in a Cincinnati case and the Illinois Court of Appeals in a Chicago case.

"Appellate courts in three states now have issued landmark rulings establishing the legal foundation for the gun industry to be held accountable for fueling the illegal gun market in urban areas," said Brian J. Siebel, a senior attorney for the legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which joined Newark in the city lawsuit as a friend of the court. "In state after state, the industry's legal defenses are falling like a house of cards."

Siebel said yesterday's ruling could provide a basis for overturning a decision last week by a San Diego judge, who relied on the federal court ruling in the Camden County case to dismiss gun manufacturers and distributors from a similar suit brought by 12 California municipalities.

New Jersey's efforts to stem gun violence led to a law signed by Gov. James E. McGreevey in December making the state the first in the nation to require that handguns sold in New Jersey be equipped with so-called "smart gun" technology, which would prevent anyone but their owners from firing them. The requirement would take effect three years after the state Attorney General's Office concludes that the technology is safe and workable.

» Send This Page | » Print This Page

Copyright 2003 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with permission.

[1Old Pro]

Story url: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/104745316653240.xml

[Black Agnes]

ping.

[Edison]

The state of NJ authorizes the purchase of every handgun. You can not buy a hand gun without getting a "permission slip" from the state. One handgun = one permission slip. Want another handgun, apply for another permission slip.

No way this flies.

Edison

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

How about suing the makers of baseball bats for vandalism and assault cases, the makers of matches for arson, and the makers of beer for the high rate of unwanted pregnancies?

[apillar]

Hopefully congress will pass the nationwide lawsuit premption bill and end all this nonsense once and for all.

[pabianice]

So it gets elevated one more level where the next highest court can call these judges Marxist morons. Works for me.

[jdege]

Siebel said yesterday's ruling could provide a basis for overturning a decision last week by a San Diego judge

Right.

The state court is trying to overturn a federal appeals decision, by claiming that they have a better understanding of how New Jersey state law is interpreted.

It's an argument that SCOTUS has allowed, on occassion. Though it's not likely to fly in this case.

But even if this decision does stand, a claim based on the particularities of New Jersey law isn't going to provide much standing for a decision citing a federal decision in California.

[harpseal]

bang

[1Old Pro]

How about suing the makers of baseball bats for vandalism and assault cases, the makers of matches for arson, and the makers of beer for the high rate of unwanted pregnancies?

It's the dreaded, awful, evil, gun that they're after. Liberals like bats, matches and beer so they're O.K.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think beer is next.

[Alberta's Child]

I need a lawyer to confirm this for me, but I would think the state courts in New Jersey have no jurisdiction in a case like this unless the manufacturers named in the suit are based in New Jersey. This would seem to be a clear violation of the Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

[Steve_Seattle]

The postmodernist New Jersey courts strike again. We need to understand that for the far left, THE LETTER OF THE LAW MEANS NOTHING. Laws will be interpreted backwards, upside-down, and inside-out to get the desired result. The classic example is the contrast between guns and abortion - the right to bear arms is specifically protected in the Constitution - with its own amendment! - but that right is denied by the Left. On the other hand, the Left screams till purple-faced about the "constitutional right to abortion," which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, was outlawed or restricted by most states, was prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath, and which was viewed as immoral by most of the public throughout most of our history. For the Left, no legal claim is too proposterous to assert in the pursuit of a desired policy objective.

[RicocheT]

13 posted... by Steve_Seattle is worth repeating:

"...We need to understand that for the far left, THE LETTER OF THE LAW MEANS NOTHING. Laws will be interpreted backwards, upside-down, and inside-out to get the desired result.

The classic example is the contrast between guns and abortion - the right to bear arms is specifically protected in the Constitution - with its own amendment! - but that right is denied by the Left. On the other hand, the Left screams till purple-faced about the "constitutional right to abortion," which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, was outlawed or restricted by most states, was prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath, and which was viewed as immoral by most of the public throughout most of our history.

For the Left, no legal claim is too preposterous to assert in the pursuit of a desired policy objective."

[Ancesthntr]

The postmodernist New Jersey courts strike again. We need to understand that for the far left, THE LETTER OF THE LAW MEANS NOTHING. Laws will be interpreted backwards, upside-down, and inside-out to get the desired result. The classic example is the contrast between guns and abortion - the right to bear arms is specifically protected in the Constitution - with its own amendment! - but that right is denied by the Left. On the other hand, the Left screams till purple-faced about the "constitutional right to abortion," which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, was outlawed or restricted by most states, was prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath, and which was viewed as immoral by most of the public throughout most of our history. For the Left, no legal claim is too proposterous to assert in the pursuit of a desired policy objective.(Emphasis added)

This bears repeating. Thanks, Steve, for cutting to the chase, and for stating something that will never be uttered or printed by the mainstream media or press.

[ought-six]

You want to bet this won't fly? The NJ Supreme Court is EXTREMELY liberal. Just remember how it ruled in the Senate race last year, when it completely ignored the law in order to allow the Democrats to replace Torricelli, who was going to lose to his Republican challenger, with that liberal old geezer who could, and did, win. Believe me, the NJ Supreme Court is an arm of the Democratic Party.

[Edison]

oh yea I conveniently put that out of my mind. I didn't think that would fly either. I must be living in De Nile while all the time I thought I lived in NJ.

Edison

[Steve_Seattle]

The NJ Supreme Court also ruled that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation" when it ruled against them in the gay scoutmaster case. Previously, everyone had understood "public accommodation" to be a place of business open to the general public, such as a hotel or restaurant. The NJSC stretched the meaning of "public accommodation" to include private organizations that are widely perceived as non-sectarian in nature, and attempted to force those organizations to renounce their by-laws if they contained elements offensive to the court.

[Coleus]

And you have to go to a Superior Court judge and plead your case in order to get a carry permit! Do you live in NJ?

[TC Rider]

..for the city to claim that the gun manufacturers' "alleged purposeful or negligent 'feeding' of guns to an illegal secondary gun market through their manufacturing, advertising and distribution scheme would yield the criminal use of the firearms in Newark..."

We are to believe that all of the advertising/marketing of gun manufacturers is not to seduce the lawful to buy, but to encourage a criminal class to steal the lawfully procured weapons.

Yet, what group continually paints guns as 'evil', 'deadly', 'assault style', etc. The gun grabbers, that's who.

If not for the lefties and their useful idiots, I doubt we'd ever see a gun on the news. And remember it's the Hollywood lefties who keep glorifying guns on 'entertainment' shows.

A NY Senator glorifying guns for criminal youth while not following safe practices.