Author Topic: NY court says victim from 10 yrs ago can sue gun maker, distributor.  (Read 284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
Court rules N.Y. shooting victim can sue gun maker, distributor    A Buffalo man who was shot nearly a decade ago can sue the manufacturer, the distributor and the dealer of the semi-automatic pistol used to shoot him, a New York state appeals court ruled on Friday.

Attorneys for Daniel Williams, who was shot in 2003 when he was in high school, argued that Ohio-based manufacturer Beemiller and the distributor, MKS Supply, violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

The defendants said they cannot be sued because of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for harm caused by the criminal misuse of their non-defective products.

A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on Friday reversed a 2011 ruling that threw out the case against the defendants - Beemiller, MKS Supply and gun dealer Charles Brown, who sold the guns to James Bostic, a Buffalo resident accused of running a trafficking scheme that funneled guns into the black market in New York.

The decision reinstates the case.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams, claims Bostic is a convicted felon and is barred from purchasing guns, according to the ruling.

The center said Bostic traveled to Ohio, which does not require a license to buy a gun, to procure a large numbers of handguns, including the pistol used to shoot Williams, the ruling said.

"Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws," Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.

Jeffrey Malsch, a lawyer for MKS, said he is reviewing the decision.

"We believe (the lower court's ruling) was a courageous and legally correct decision, but the Fourth Department was unwilling to follow his well reasoned opinion," he said. "Whether we appeal or not, we are confident that ultimately the facts will contradict the baseless allegations in the complaint and the case will be dismissed."

Attorneys for Williams and the remaining defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...ticNews&rpc=76
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: NY court says victim from 10 yrs ago can sue gun maker, distributor.
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2012, 12:10:39 PM »
If the gun operated as advertised with no malfuntions, then federal law says he can't sue.
the law was passed (no thanks to liberals and anarchists) to stop frivolous lawsuits.

only if the defendants had foreknowledge of the crime will he have a case.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline Brett

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Gender: Male
Re: NY court says victim from 10 yrs ago can sue gun maker, distributor.
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2012, 12:13:51 PM »
If they allow this then it opens the door for suits against manufacturers of all manor of goods or services.  A person hit by a drunk driver could conceivably sue Ford and Crown Royal.  It's all about greed not about justice or punishing the responsible parties. 

Life memberships:  <><, NRA, BASS, NAFC

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: NY court says victim from 10 yrs ago can sue gun maker, distributor.
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2012, 01:09:58 PM »
If they allow this then it opens the door for suits against manufacturers of all manor of goods or services.  A person hit by a drunk driver could conceivably sue Ford and Crown Royal.  It's all about greed not about justice or punishing the responsible parties.
you're right about this.  maybe this will be the test case before the supremes.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline Bigeasy

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
  • Gender: Male
Re: NY court says victim from 10 yrs ago can sue gun maker, distributor.
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2012, 01:47:09 PM »
I guess my question would be, if it can be proven that the defendants knowingly conspired to violate the laws regulating the distribution and sales of firearms, are they still protected under the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?
 
I think this might make a big difference in legal protection compared to companies that distribute a product in good faith compliance of the law.
 
Larry
Personal opinion is a good thing, and everyone is entitled to one.  The hard part is separating informed opinion from someone who is just blowing hot air....

Offline Conan The Librarian

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4494
  • McDonalds. Blecch!
Re: NY court says victim from 10 yrs ago can sue gun maker, distributor.
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2012, 06:02:09 AM »
I remember a time when I dealt with companies that didn't sell to certain states. It had something to do with rulings like this. That was quite a while ago. They were saying it was just too risky to operate in those states. NY and CA and some new england states.