Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gunning for Manufacturers through courts
Overlawyered.com | 4-29-02 | n/a

Posted on 04/30/2002 1:10:03 PM PDT by Temple Owl

April 29-30 -- "Gunning for manufacturers through courts".

  "A NYC council member is seeking to limit access to guns in NYC even more by opening the door to lawsuits against gun manufacturers who don’t follow a 'corporate code of conduct'.

David Yassky, a former law professor and aide for Chuck Schumer when he was a congressman, received money from 189 attorneys and others of his 'social class' in his successful campaign for Council, and filed an amicus brief in the US vs Emerson case encouraging a finding that in the 2nd Amendment, 'bear arms' meant for military use only." 

("Gunning for manufacturers through courts", "Cut on the Bias" blog (Susanna Cornett), Apr. 22; "Metro Briefing: New York", New York Times, Apr. 22). 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 2damendment; banglist; gunmanufacturers; lawsuits
This came from Overlawyered.com which does not go into great detail, but keeps its readers informed of the latest lawyer excesses.
1 posted on 04/30/2002 1:10:04 PM PDT by Temple Owl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Schmuck Chumer is a putz.
2 posted on 04/30/2002 1:18:27 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Here is the original story from the linked blog:


GUNNING FOR MANUFACTURERS THROUGH COURTS: A NYC council member is seeking to limit access to guns in NYC even more by opening the door to lawsuits against gun manufacturers who don’t follow a “corporate code of conduct”. David Yassky, a former law professor and aide for Chuck Schumer when he was a congressman, received money from 189 attorneys and others of his "social class" in his successful campaign for Council, and filed an amicus brief in the US vs Emerson case encouraging a finding that in the 2nd Amendment, “bear arms” meant for military use only. From the NY Times:

MANHATTAN: BILL WOULD LET GUN VICTIMS SUE A City Council member proposed a bill yesterday that would allow gunshot victims to sue gun manufacturers that do not conform to a corporate code of conduct. The council member, David Yassky of Brooklyn, is a former Congressional aide who helped draft the federal Brady Law and the assault-weapons ban. Mr. Yassky wants gun manufacturers to agree to stop selling weapons to dealers who resell to other dealers who will offer customers more than one gun a month. He also wants manufacturers not to sell to gun shows, which have relatively little supervision, or to dealers found to have sold more than 20 guns used in crimes in one year. Michael Cooper (NYT)

In its endorsement of Yassky for council member, the NY Times said,

David Yassky, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, was Charles Schumer's firepower when Mr. Schumer, now senator, was in the House of Representatives.

I’ll be watching this one. If it passes, would it be "next stop, Senate"?

UPDATE: I skidded past the "gunshot victims" part of the bill in my first pass through, but that is a huge concern. Just who qualifies as "gunshot victim" - anyone shot? Or just those accidentally shot? Does this open a whole area where criminals shot in the commission of crimes can go after gun manufacturers for damages? The mind boggles.

3 posted on 04/30/2002 1:29:25 PM PDT by the
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Bang_List
index bump
4 posted on 04/30/2002 2:12:52 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
filed an amicus brief in the US vs Emerson case encouraging a finding that in the 2nd Amendment, 'bear arms' meant for military use only."

It would be interesting to see the derivation of that opinion, since the authors of the Second Amendment state clearly and repeatedly that they consider the "well-regulated" milita to be pretty much all able-bodied males. Not that it matters much to liberals, but there is virtually no historical evidence to support such an opinion.

5 posted on 04/30/2002 2:57:19 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the
IF you shoot yourself and don't kill yourself, YOU are a gunshot victim.
6 posted on 04/30/2002 3:45:31 PM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson