* Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement, and knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals, youths and other persons unqualified to buy firearms; * Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding markets with looser gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City;
* Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices;
* Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon.
My CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS end at the New York City limits???
* Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement,None of the governments business
and knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals, youths and other persons unqualified to buy firearms;
People who transfer weapons to criminals, youths, and other persons are already criminals under federal statute, and in all states I’m aware of. If that wasn’t the case in NY, the solution would have been legislative, not civil.
* Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding markets with looser gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City;
Also criminal, not civil.
* Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices;
I repeat myself, criminal, not civil.
* Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon.
Ping me when LEOs, who are at great risk of being harmed by un-personalized weapons, endorse this concept. It doesn’t work, and is none of the governments business.
The solution to these problems is in the realm of law enforcement. The problems you enumerate are law enforcement problems. The reason a civil suit was pursued is MONEY. Just piggybacking on the tobacco settlement.
Worth noting, the suit failed.
If Rudy is presenting himself as someone who has matured in his opinions, particularly in the context of appealing to a wider constituency. His participation in the firearms lawsuit is the action of a liberal thinking urban mayor. And probably something his supporters should leave in the past.
* Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding markets with looser gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City; - How is a gun manufacturer responsible to know their ultimate destination once they've sold the merhandise to a distributor?
* Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices; - Again, unless the distributors are subsidiaries of manufacturers, I fail to see how it's the legal responsibility of a company to police its customers
* Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon. - Hahahaha! You can't possibly think targeting manufacturers for this is a good thing. If these measures are required by the state, pass laws to that effect. Don't try to accomplish it by bullying businesses via the courts.
"* Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement"
I think Coca Cola can be sued for making too many Cokes and forcing kids to become fat!
McDonald's should be sued for making too many hamburgers for legitmate reasons, we should be limited to eating 2.5 hamburgers per month and evil McDonald's floods the market with hamburgers, especially in the inner city!
Ed