Posted on 05/06/2008 7:05:06 AM PDT by epow
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Today, a Manhattan-based federal appeals court ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against firearms manufacturers by the City of New York that sought to hold the manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms.
Court Decision
Judge Robert J. Miner, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals, held the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, enacted in 2005, is constitutional and that Brooklyn, NY, federal court judge Jack B. Weinstein misinterpreted the law by not dismissing the case.
“We think Congress clearly intended to protect from vicarious liability members of the firearms industry who engage in the ‘lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale’ of firearms,” said Judge Miner.
In dismissing the city’s claim that its suit fit within an exception to the act – a claim that would allow its case to go forward – the court wrote that the statute was “intended to shield the firearms industry from the vicarious liability for harm caused by firearms that were lawfully distributed into primary markets.”
Following the ruling by the court, Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the firearms industry’s trade association – said, “Today’s ruling is very gratifying to members of the firearms industry. In passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress understood that frivolous lawsuits like New York City’s defied common sense and represented a clear abuse of the judicial system that threatened to bankrupt a responsible and law-abiding industry.”
The city’s lawsuit against the nation’s firearms manufacturers was originally filed by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in June 2000 and was continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg is also suing out-of-state firearms retailers. That case will go to trial later this month before Judge Weinstein.
Today’s ruling is seen by many as another major setback for gun-control groups, principally the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which pursued and funded many of the municipal lawsuits, including this New York City case, against the firearms industry.
###
Formed in 1961, the National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) is the trade association for the firearms and recreational shooting sports industry. NSSF's mission is to provide trusted leadership in addressing industry challenges and delivering programs and services to meet the identified needs of its members by measurably advancing participation in and understanding of hunting and the shooting sports. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.
Press Releases
© 2008 National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved 11 Mile Hill Road • Newtown, CT 06470 • 203.426.1320 Privacy Statement • Linking Policy • Terms of Use
The bad news is that the next Congress will probably be controlled by Reid and Pelosi and could repeal the '06 law, and either Hillary or Obama would sign the repeal bill as soon as it hit their desk.
This ancient AssClown is always front & center on these issues. He hates guns, and makes no bones about it.
Can the firearms industry now sue to recover the money it took to fight this in court?
I think this was already posted back when the decision came out. Should be a thread dated 4-30
How about triple lawyer’s fees, because they knew when they filed the case it was against the new federal law? No matter, the taxpayers will just pony it up whatever the damages are. Moral hazards and all that.
What prevents gun manufacturers from suing those who brought this to the court, for relief? Bloomberg’s pockets are pretty deep.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
He deserve triple damages. That couple peel a few million from his wad.
I did a FR search and nothing came up.
To paraphrase J.C. Watts: “Guns are as responsible for crime as chains are responsible for slavery.”
The tobacco industry engages in the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, etc of cigarettes. Lot of good that did them.
Yeah, I know the industry supposedly misled people, but as much as I am opposed to tobacco smoking on health grounds, I can't honestly say that I believe any reasonable person was misled. The lawsuits were just another way for the govt to take what does not belong to it in order to fund pet projects.
Yes but that way all share the cost , instead of just gun owners. Let the people understand that the reason their sale or property tax went up.
No, those laws are intended for the ACLU.
Someone needs to think about retiring IMHO.
I started smoking in high school about 1954. Even back then I knew it was bad for my health, and several family members including my grandfather and some family friends had died from lung cancer and heart disease probably caused by smoking. The kids who smoke today know more than I did about the dangers, but just as I was at that age they think they're invincible. Laws against minors getting tobacco, alcohol, and drugs haven't worked, and neither would a gun ban. I don't object to those laws designed to protect kids, and those restricted items don't have constitutional protection as guns do, but I don't think they keep very many kids from getting what they want.
People have to take some responsibility onto themselves, government can't provide a sealed bubble to protect every American from every possible danger. A gun close at hand combined with some basic firearms training can provide much more protection from criminal home invader(s) than a cop in a cruiser 5 miles away across town.
“I think this was already posted back when the decision came out. Should be a thread dated 4-30”
______________________________________________________________
Since that may well be true, why not just resist the urge to post and go to the next thread?
I find this thread informative and did not see 4/30/08 that you referenced.
If you are a moderator tasked with curtailing redundancy, I apologize. I understand the need to conserve bandwidth. If that is your role, just deleting would be more affective.
This coming from a Brooklyn judge is good news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.