[pawdoggie]

Constitutionality aside (and it usually is when liberals discover a clause or amendment they don't like), is this legal or binding against a gun manufacturer not located or doing business in NYC?

[kAcknor]

Yes, it is. Or so they hope. The small (or large) company manufacturing firearms in Arizona is now liable in NYC for the actions of the second, fifth or eighteenth buyer of the product.

If this stands, how long do you think it will be before somebody sues Ford because somebody sideswiped them with a F-150?

[JCEccles]

Under the stream of commerce doctrine, any gun manufacturer who should reasonably foresee that its guns would end up in New York City could be sued in NYC under this law, even if the manufacturer has no physical presence in New York. I cannot think of a gun manufacturer who could successfully argue that it was not reasonably foreseeable that its guns would end up in New York City. Even if a gun manufacturer could prevail, the costs of litigating and appealing the jurisdictional issue alone could run into millions or even tens of millions of dollars.

As I said, liberals know how to attack our rights in precise and expensive ways the founders never dreamed of. It helps their cause that they own the courts.