Court Rules N.Y. Shooting Victim Can Sue Gun Maker, Distributor

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Court rules N.Y. shooting victim can sue gun maker, distributor

By Daniel Wiessner

Fri Oct 5, 2012 10:22pm EDT

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) - 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.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89502020121006

[graham4anything]

1. Groovy!

And the NRA should be part of it too

And may the law team should be as good as the one OJ Used.
Maybe Gerry Spence can come out of retirement and lead the cause to getting rid of all
of these weapons of mass destruction

and maybe Mayor Mike can finance the best damn legal team money can buy

all it takes is a few dollars more than the Nra to bring down the NRA
audit them and find out how they are financed and why a super money pac with only
4.3 million speaks for a nation of 320 million people

(4.3 is also the # of the total amount of fox cable viewers...odd isn't it? 1.5 percent of America and such a big mouth.

[gopiscrap]

2. I fully agree

fuck the NRA they generally vote repuke anyway

[wordpix]

6. definitely sue the NRA +10000

[glacierbay]

19. Sure the NRA only has about 4.5 million

but what about the other 75-85 million gun owners in the country? Do you think that they are going to just stand by and let the likes of you and your cronies attempt to outlaw the ownership of firearms? You would see the NRA membership swell to historic proportions and donations to them would also swell.

Your hero, Mike, is not going to waste his money taking on the NRA, he has shown no inclination to do so and he won't in the future.

As far as Faux Snooze, what's your solution for them, shut them down?

[Hoyt]

81. You mean the "free-riders" who support and benefit from NRA's

right wing agenda, but don't pay dues? NRA benefits from those gun zealots too. NRA right wing leadership - like Grover Norquist - benefit in ways not related to guns too.

[boppers]

3. Distributor, I can see.

Manufacturer, not so much.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Depends. Might be all responsible.

See what a trial brings. This one sounds worth pursuing.

[goclark]

44. I agree with you

I believe we are in the minority but I'm OK with that- something needsto be ---It is one thing to legally own a gun but IMO it is another thing to go around shooting people
without a cause. Gang Members etc.

Someone tries to break in your house and you own a gun..... call 911 and blast away if they can't get there fast enough.

I live in a large city and it can be like the Wild, Wild West - it's crazy.

[CreekDog]

35. I don't see why gun manufacturers should have more protection than others

that's not fair.

[glacierbay]

36. The reason for the protection

was because anti gun cities were bringing frivolous lawsuits against firearms stores and firearms manufacturers in the hopes of running them out of business by bankrupting them, people like Mike Bloomberg, Richard Daly, and others.
Congress stepped in and passed this law with bipartisan support.

[CreekDog]

37. ironically to protect people from other people with guns

[glacierbay]

38. No

It's to protect a seller or a manufacturer of a legal product from being put out of business because of frivolous lawsuits.

[CreekDog]

39. No, I mean the guns --they're being sold to protect people from other people with guns

they are.

eventually they'll be so many guns that we'll all have to have them everywhere, like iPhone chargers...

but we won't be safer.

[PavePusher]

40. Wharfgarble. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

45. It they let everyone do this to every company all commerce would stand still

Had a car wreck? Sue everyone including the car salesman who sold the person the car. It would be a disaster.

[boppers]

46. You can try to sue a car company or a car salesman for your car wreck.

You will likely lose.

Commerce in cars hasn't stopped because of it.

Your theory is not valid.

[Mojorabbit]

48. It is along the same line I think

If you can sue for what is described in the op you can sue for anything. It costs a lot to defend oneself from such a suit. Sue the blacksmith who made a knife cause someone cut off their finger, sue the oven manufacturer because one burns their hand while cooking, etc

[boppers]

55. That's already how it works.

For most things.

Guns have become a special case.

[abumbyanyothername]

5. I was going to bring this suit

back in 85 when the son of a prominent local businessman in the Iowa town where I was practicing was shot.

I wish I had.

[Trunk Monkey]

7. So now I can sue Anheuser-Busch because a drunk ran me off the road? NT

[graham4anything]

11. I personally think that a bar should be sued if there is an accident after

If a person drinks too much at a bar or restaurant, they should be sued

and yes, all laws should be such that beer companies and cigarette companies get sued for any direct or indirect health problems

being that health care is so expensive, they should be responsible.

I had a friend, now deceased more than 5 years, who worked at PO and was a drunk and sometimes I picked him up there, bombed out of his mind, yet someone said, one more round, and he drank and drank for another hour.

A gun dealers, a bar tender, a seller of cigarettes directly makes money selling their goods.

And in almost every other area, one does sue the places where one gets it, and if say a bad aspirin is sold at a supermarket or drug store, people all the time sue the corporate place.

(If one spills coffee at a MacDonald's, one sues MacDonald's for having such hot water or coffee.)

So yes, you should sue

But why do NRA groupies all bring up totally off topic into the gunny topics?

Didn't your mama ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right?

(but then the NRA pays professionals to write concise paragraphs and letters and all members know the exact answers to spew out whenever someone writes anything against weapons of mass destruction, which guns and bullets are.

(At least there is poetic justice at times, like when a dufus shoots off his penis and balls shoving the gun in his pants...I laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh everytime I read about that.)Especially as it is a given that a gun is a replacement male symbol anyhoo.

But it is fun to argue with gunnies.

On another board used to argue with another NRA disciple (and by the way Steve you G. Gordon Liddy lookalike and act alike, (who died a year ago from lung cancer), whereever you are, your Cardinals did better than my Mets this year, congrats on last night.) It was always fun arguing with him (don't know if he considered it fun though), but loving baseball was the one thing we agreed on. And in private pm's when he wasn't forced to be on topic about guns, he was a pretty ok person.)
But everytime I hear his Cardinals mentioned, I think of him.

[backwoodsbob]

16. but the question is

should your friends family be able to sue the maker of whatever his drink of choice was?If it was Jack Daniels should the family be able to sue them for making the product?

[graham4anything]

20. The question was- was Joe Paterno guilty because of Sandusky? IMHO YES YES YES

are people who are driving a car, it pulls into a gas station, the passenger gets out
and kills the clerk inside, robs 500 bucks
gets back in the car non-chalantley
the driver pulls away

an hour later pulled over

the driver is as guilty as the passenger.

everyone pays when someone dies. Someone should pay and not the taxpayer.

A jury can decide. If its 1 NRA person on the jury, it will be a hung jury.
If its 12 anti-gun people the gun people will lose

and then there are the cases where the public jury is fed up and says enough is enough.

And probably the most likely outcome is a payoff before the trial to make everyone happy
and not risk a major shift.
If the gun makers thought they would lose, they certainly would offer a few million after taxes to have someone walk away and not talk about it or lose a case.

[Trunk Monkey]

18. I am not 100% sure about this

But I think in Colorado if a restaurant or bar serves a visibly intoxicated person and that person later is in an accident they are liable.

As to the rest no one ever forced me to smoke a cigarette, it isn't Phillip Morris' fault if I get lung cancer (quit smoking 17 years ago)

And in almost every other area, one does sue the places where one gets it, and if say a bad aspirin is sold at a supermarket or drug store, people all the time sue the corporate place.

There is a major difference between an improperly manufactured aspirin that harms someone who takes it IAW the package directions and through no fault of their own
Is injured by it and someone who illegally obtains a firearm and uses it for a criminal purpose.

But you knew that

(At least there is poetic justice at times, like when a dufus shoots off his penis and balls shoving the gun in his pants...I laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh everytime I read about that.)

I would say that your lack of compassion astounds me but it doesn't

[bitchkitty]

53. Compassion...

I don't guess I have it then. I'm afraid that I have to tell you that the thought of some yahoo shooting his dick off is pretty amusing.

[Trunk Monkey]

60. which means you lack compassion

I can acknowledge that the guy is an idiot and still feel empathy for his pain.

I've been shot I know what it feels like and I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone.

[bitchkitty]

85. If he hit an artery,

and bled to death, I'd have compassion for him and his family. As it is, ruining the reproductive equipment of an idiot can't be all bad.

[Hoyt]

82. One can sue tobacco companies. Why not those who make and MARKET lethal weapons?

Why not those who support gun proliferation and "stand you ground laws? " Why not gun shops that pander to drooling gun purchasers?

[gejohnston]

10. I have a question

MKS Supply, violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

Does that mean MKS sold to non FFL holders across state lines? If that is the case, the dealers were not just irresponsible, but criminal by being in business without an FFL. Has MKS lost theirs and are people going to jail? If the article is accurate, they should.

If not, I don't see the suit going anywhere.

[boppers]

47. FFL licenses are (theoretically) held by scrupulous dealers.

As I read it, MKS is accused of selling to FFL dealers who weren't complying with the existing laws, and turning a blind eye to it.

[gejohnston]

50. better question is, why is the ATF turning a blind eye to it?

The ATF inspects FFLs for compliance. If these FFLs are violating the law, knowingly selling them to gangs and crooks, the ATF should pull their FFLs and turn the case to the local US attorney for violating federal gun control laws. How would MKS know if these guys are in compliance or not? If MKS is shipping across state lines to non FFL holders, then they are violating the 1968 Gun Control Act and should have the ATF in their ass. There was a pawn shop up the road from me that the ATF closed down and sent the owner to prison because of poor inventory control. Guns were logged in when bought by the store, but no 4473s showing them being sold even though they were not in the store. Black marketing or sucky record keeping? The GCA calls both a felony.

If you are a dealer, have a business license, and are selling guns without an FFL, you are violating current gun laws that have been on the books since the 1930s.

[boppers]

56. Because it would put most gun sales places out of business.

Therein lies the rub.

[gejohnston]

58. not buying it

the vast majority are law abiding businesses, much less sleazy than the auto business. According to the ATF, most criminals get theirs from relatives etc, and the average crime gun is over eleven years old.

[greiner3]

12. "A Buffalo man who was shot..."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're STILL bitching over being nearly exterminated a century and a half ago.

I for one say, LET IT GO ALREADY!

[onehandle]

13. Good. Everyone in the food chain of a gun crime should answer for the crime.

The only purpose for guns is killing.

All who touch the gun along the pathway of commerce is responsible.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Very good.

[krispos42]

15. Horseshit.

Then I guess we should also sue the shooter's parents and school system for creating the criminal that turned into a murders.

After all, the kid's DNA is most definitely the parent's fault, and the kid's environment is largely home and school life.



Can we sue the elite prep schools and colleges that created the financial criminals of 2008? Can we sue their families, too?



You hate guns and the people that own them to an irrational level, such that you and some of the others in this thread are perfect examples of who shouldn't be making laws on the issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. WOW

Gosh ....we can go tit for tat.

The complete and apparent disregard so many gun enthusiasts have in arguing the sanctity of gun ownership over rides the sanctity of life does nothing to further their argument.

You write: You hate guns and the people that own them to an irrational level, such that you and some of the others in this thread are perfect examples of who shouldn't be making laws on the issue.

Now that is....what was the word you use...horsesit.

Since when is good judgment or intellect a prerequisite to participating in a democracy?

Fine....I'll claim your BS reasoning:

You hate people killed by guns and those who want to do something about it to an irrational level, such that you and some of the others in this thread are perfect examples of who shouldn't be making laws on the issue.

[krispos42]

21. The difference, is, of course, that I'm right and you're wrong.

But it's nice to see that you believe onehandle isn't necessarily using good judgement or intellect. That's beside the point, though.


The fact that some people want to hold EVERYBODY that touched a gun liable for a criminal misuse of guns is no different than those RW blowhards that DEMAND that the Muslim community disavow all terrorists, or else be labeled and targeted as terrorists.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Difference is that's an Argument

This is 'horseshit':

You hate guns and the people that own them to an irrational level, such that you and some of the others in this thread are perfect examples of who shouldn't be making laws on the issue.

This is an argument and so much better:

The fact that some people want to hold EVERYBODY that touched a gun liable for a criminal misuse of guns is no different than those RW blowhards that DEMAND that the Muslim community disavow all terrorists, or else be labeled and targeted as terrorists.

It's a bad argument, but it's an argument. One crime could have been prevented by the people responsible making and handling a product. The other crime has nothing to do with those accused. Gun manufacturers don't get off that easily.

[PavePusher]

42. Since this...

The complete and apparent disregard so many gun enthusiasts have in arguing the sanctity of gun ownership over rides the sanctity of life does nothing to further their argument.

...is, of course, utter nonsense, and fabricated nonsense at that, the rest of your series of accusations is null and void.

[graham4anything]

52. actually in many places across the country, parents are held responsible for minors crimes

and like all NRA groupies, and passer-ons of NRA emails and without fact.


In NJ, if there is a party in ones house and underage kids are drinking (even if parents are home or not),the parents are considered responsible.

[krispos42]

61. And in NY, does the liquor store there parents purchased the booze...

...months or years ago get sued? How about Johnnie Walker and Sam Adams?

[glacierbay]

64. So let me see if I'm getting this right.

You say that the NRA should be held responsible for firearms being misused? Really? Why? Because you don't like them? I don't like the NRA either, but I certainly don't hold them responsible for criminals misusing firearms, and no court in the land would either.

[graham4anything]

65. You are an NRA talking point police man. You distract every anti-gun thread there is

why don't the gun lovers stay out of the anti-gun threads

Guns are weapons of mass destruction
manufactured to kill
bullets manufactured to kill

The NRA provides money to anyone that goes against gun rights

Therefore they are like anyone that helped the asswipe that killed the kind meek gentle soul doctor in Kansas who got assasssinated by a gun and that asswipe was hidden by money provided by abetters of him. One and the same.

And again, you guys are scared of Michael Bloomberg, knowing he has the funds to go against the NRA, something nobody in the past has

He already has stated he is going to leave this earth whenever that is (and his family genes are very old old age)
and leave his bank account at zero at that time. He won't leave anything behind, giving it all away
(as he has asked others to do for any causes).
And I am sure his papers stipulate it all.

Finally someone with money is on the side of getting rid of the gun problems.

[PavePusher]

66. Dodge. You did not address anything presented to you.

You simply displayed more wharfgarble, and you side with a man who thinks the Fourth Amendment is toilet paper.

[graham4anything]

69. I believe in the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness & all are equal

My life liberty and pursuit of happiness are directly affected by a gun if someone shoots me or someone I love.
My right to purse happiness in a theatre is ruined by someone who shoots up a place, when there is security that can let us all know a gun is in the outside perimeter

You gunnies want more guns inside
I want No guns inside anywhere and there are machines that can prevent a gun from entering a building.

I want everyone searched or scanned (broadly, it can be like cars going through the e-z pass lanes at 50 miles an hour) and everyone in the area who has a gun is spotted immediately.

Your questions and bullying tactics are bullshit. Just divergences from talking about guns.
conspiracy theory style diversions
why?
2 wrongs don't make a right.

And I don't spew the founding fathers words every day.
On the one hand everyone was created equal with certain rights
However-
Did Thomas Jefferson give a choice to his slaves he forced to come to my bedroom and got at least one pregnant?

Sorry I don't believe everything Thmas Jefferson did was great.

and people who spew da constitution da constitution have never read the true meanings of what was written.
(like people who yap about sex they get- those that speak never do).

People against guns are the patriots of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
guns=death.
no guns=life.

guns are like cigarettes. Now, 90% of the country don't smoke. Then 90% did.
things change

[glacierbay]

70. There's still a question pending

do you believe that the NRA is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms? It's a yes or no question. If so, why?

[graham4anything]

72. I will let you keep a gun in your house, provided in advance I know you have one

then it is my right to never enter a house with a gun

Your right to bring a gun outside your house directly affects my rights.

I think the NRA is an accessory to murder. And the supreme court ruled as such.
How you ask? By having personhood corporations.

so the NRA a non-profit corporation is indeed a person. And they directly abet as do all manufactures, all people with guns.(good or bad.)
Therefore they are liable IMHO

now it may not work, but it would depend on who is on the jury.And how sympathetic the side is.After all, we all know and I myself do believe OJ Simpson was not guilty based on the evidence and trial he received.
And many thought otherwise
And OJ was found not guilty. End of story (except he was tricked and set up in Nevada, where he never should have been.And it is my belief it was in Nevada specifically to set him up, probably with the knowledge of that dispacable guy with a moustache who wrote a book about his son dying.)

[glacierbay]

73. I'm sorry

but you don't LET me do anything, quite the authoritarian aren't you? What the hell does OJ have to do with this thread? Answer, nothing, try to stay on topic.
So by your logic, Ford Motor Company should be held liable for the criminal misuse of their vehicles? Or how about the dealer or private seller of the vehicle that's used in a crime? Or better yet, the owner of the vehicle that's stolen and used in a crime? Are they responsible for the criminal misuse of the lawful product?

You have no RIGHT to know what anyone has or doesn't have in their home. If I want to have 100 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo in my house, that's none of your business, if a citizen who is CC permitted wants to CC, once again, it's none of your business as long as they are doing it legally.

[graham4anything]

77. I have a freedom of choice to not enter your home with stockpiled guns

after all, I can see you are a rabid gun fan who doesn't like conversation you don't like

last thing I would want is to be in a situation where the person I am talking to has a gun under their chair and for fun thinks aha what an opportunity and gives me a heart attack scaring me. (not saying anyone here but just in general)

Your question about cars belongs on an automobile thread.

And yes, I have a right to know IF I ASK IN ADVANCE DO YOU HAVE A GUN before entering your home

and if you say yes (either on the phone at the door, in a text, email, etc.)

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ENTER YOUR HOME

SO YES, I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

You can refuse to tell me, at which point I would not enter your house, even if you thought it was rude.

AND I WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO BRING A GUN INTO MY HOUSE OR CAR.

AND I WOULD ASK.

Just like I do not allow any smoke in my house, car or around my house or car where the smell lingers and I could breathe it.

Many a relative don't like to come to my house, but then, I do not like going to theirs just as much.

CHOICE- my choice is not to allow it.

[glacierbay]

79. I never said you don't have the right to not enter my home

and I never said you don't have the right to refuse me entry into your home. You said you would LET me have a gun in my home, you don't have the right to LET me do anything.

I am not a rabidly gun fan, I am a supporter of the RKBA, the only guns in my house are my service weapon, my AR-15, which I use in my line of work, and my hunting rifles. Don't assume something you know nothing about.

You also have no right to know who is carrying a concealed weapon, you may want to know, but you don't have the right to know.

There's still a question pending, do you believe that the NRA, manufacturer's sellers of firearms are responsible for the criminal misues of their legal product. The vehicle analogy is very pertinent.

[graham4anything]

84. The NRA provides help and resources for the people on trial with guns

makes them an accesory

funny how though you gunnies blame Eric Holder for doing nothing wrong. What hypocrites.

[glacierbay]

87. I see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you

so I'll answer, No the NRA is not responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms and you no court in the land would agree that the NRA is responsible and can be sued.

[PavePusher]

91. This one is either deliberately distractive/disruptive, or not tracking well.

And seems to float on both sides of the line of coherency.

Either way, not worth your time.

[glacierbay]

92. What he may be trying to do is get one of us to say something inflammatory

and then try to get a post hidden, just like another poster I tangled with, however, I won't play that game, and I know it frustrated Dain______ed and I think he put me on ignore. But, you're right, I'm done for today with this guy, he seems to be getting disoriented and he needs a break.

[primavera]

93. Interesting legal question here

I've never really thought about it from this perspective before, but does one have a right to know if another person poses an increased risk of causing physical harm? Consider the classic tort cases in which the homeowner puts up intruder deterrent devices on his/her own property. The property owner is fully within his/her rights to do so on his/her property, but nonetheless has an obligation to erect warning signs, notifying potential intruders that, if they trespass, they may be physically harmed by those devices. E.g., you can put down a land mine if you really want to, but you have to let everyone know that you've done so, because the law doesn't allow you to blow up the unwary trespasser, even when they're breaking the law by intruding uninvited upon your property, because the penalty of being blown up is disproportionate to the offense of trespassing. Some courts have also held that, if you have AIDS, you have a duty to inform your partner before engaging in sexual behavior that could put them at risk of being infected with a life-threatening disease. You can still have sex, you just need to inform the other party so that they know what they're risking. I wonder whether the same reasoning could be applied to the property of gun owners. Yes, you have a right to pack your house with guns, but does the person entering your house have a right to know that, by entering your house, they are assuming a greater risk of being shot than they would in the home of someone who owned no guns?

[graham4anything]

96. you are exactly correct- Can I make this a new thread asking this question?

you (poster primavera) said
"
I've never really thought about it from this perspective before, but does one have a right to know if another person poses an increased risk of causing physical harm?

Consider the classic tort cases in which the homeowner puts up intruder deterrent devices on his/her own property. The property owner is fully within his/her rights to do so on his/her property, but nonetheless has an obligation to erect warning signs, notifying potential intruders that, if they trespass, they may be physically harmed by those devices.

E.g., you can put down a land mine if you really want to, but you have to let everyone know that you've done so, because the law doesn't allow you to blow up the unwary trespasser, even when they're breaking the law by intruding uninvited upon your property, because the penalty of being blown up is disproportionate to the offense of trespassing.

Some courts have also held that, if you have AIDS, you have a duty to inform your partner before engaging in sexual behavior that could put them at risk of being infected with a life-threatening disease.

You can still have sex, you just need to inform the other party so that they know what they're risking. I wonder whether the same reasoning could be applied to the property of gun owners. Yes, you have a right to pack your house with guns, but does the person entering your house have a right to know that, by entering your house, they are assuming a greater risk of being shot than they would in the home of someone who owned no guns?"

[primavera]

97. Lol! By all means, I'd be curious to see the responses. - n/t

[glacierbay]

98. No

you don't have the right to know what is in someone's home and the owner has no obligation to inform you of whats in their home.
If you ever tried to bring a civil or criminal case based on that before the courts, you'd be laughed out of court.

The only way I can see you winning a case is if you were injured because of something illegal in the home that you weren't notified about and firearms don't fit that description, because after all, firearms are legal to own unless you're a prohibited person in which case, someone like me will come to take you to the Iron Bar Hotel.

[primavera]

99. Actually, that's not true

Property owners do have a duty to inform persons who enter their property - with or without license - of hazards, it's called premises liability law. If, for instance, you have a dangerous wild animal in your home, you are legally obliged to warn people that you have this dangerous animal on your premises and that any person entering may be harmed by it. If you set out security devices (the examples from classic tort law are bear traps and spring guns) and fail to warn people that they are present on your property, you can be sued under tort law for battery if someone comes to harm from them, even if those devices are legal. See: Bird v. Holbrook, Wilkinson v. Downton, Addie v. Dumbreck, and especially Rowland v. Christian.

The interesting legal question is not whether a homeowner has a duty to warn of hazards - that much is black letter law - but whether possession of firearms could be considered a hazard. In that respect, you're probably right that a court would be reluctant to consider mere possession of a firearm to be a hazard that required a warning. Still, with the right fact pattern, you never know. Say you kept numerous guns in your home, all fully loaded with the safeties off, just lying around your house. A child enters your home, picks one up, and shoots himself. I have no idea what the court would do, but it would be an interesting case.

[PavePusher]

74. My goodness, you are quite the little Authoritarian-tin-pot-dictator-wanna-be, aren't you?

and people who spew da constitution da constitution have never read the true meanings of what was written.

Feel free to educate us. We're waiting.

[glacierbay]

68. There's a question pending

are you going to answer it?
BTW, I'm not afraid of hero Mike, why should I be, he's no threat to me.

[primavera]

94. It's called "proximate cause" versus "cause in fact"...

... and it's a very tricky area of law. Cause in fact is defined as the but for cause, i.e., were it not for this event taking place, nothing else along the successive chain of events could have occurred. It is therefore a cause of the subsequent event, but may be so distantly removed as to be meaningless. The classic example in law school is the physician who refuses to provide an abortion to a woman who wants one, she goes on to have the child, who grows up and, twenty years later, commits a crime. Had the physician provided the abortion, the child would never have been born and the crime would never have taken place, so the physician's decision is a cause in fact. But it's so distant that no court would ever hold him guilty. On the flip side, though, one doesn't need to actually pull the trigger one's self to be the proximate cause of the harm. The contrasting classic example is the kid who throws a lighted firecracker into a crowd. The first person who catches it throws it away and a second person catches it, who in turn throws it on to a third person, and so on. Eventually, it explodes and injures somebody. The last person to catch and throw it is the most proximate cause of the injury, yet is still not the responsible party because, had the kid not thrown the lighted firecracker into the crowd in the first place, the injury would never have taken place. Where along this scale of causation is one of the hardest things to determine in law. Which is why the court held that gun manufacturers may, indeed, bear some portion of responsibility for crimes committed with the weapons they sell. But it's a very subtle determination that hinges upon the specific facts of the situation. I'm no authority on torts, but my suspicion is that it would be very difficult to prove that the gun manufacturer was a cause in fact that was sufficiently proximate to the event to be actionable, but it's by no means inconceivable that they could be liable under the law.

[Scootaloo]

57. Before you call others irrational, check your own lips for froth. n/t

[aikoaiko]

24. Another great example of why the anti-gunnies fails

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

They are several legal uses of firearms including the killing of someone who can't otherwise be stopped from gravely harming someone else without cause.

It's almost as if you would rather someone be beaten, raped, or killed than use a firearm lethally to defend oneself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. Guns are Doing What?

Seriously, with more guns per capita, we still have more people beaten, raped, or killed with firearms than any other large country. So much for defending us. I'd argue your guns are killing us.

[graham4anything]

71. no gun ever saved anyone, the gunnies are always with the NRA talking points

and no gun has ever saved anyone

and if the perp is a member of say the Mafia, the Mafia will avenge the death.
And so will anyone else.

same bullshit lines by the gunnies all the time.
Like the awipes that said if the Jews were monsters like the Nazi's, they wouldn't have been killed if they only killed all the nazi's in advance of knowing they would be killed.

what freakin bozo logic.

and same gotcha question that killed the election chances of Mike Dukakis, a fine noble man.

If I ran a site, I would allow NO pro-gun threads on a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT site.

All this bowing down to the faux idol Mr. Gun.

Get a patch for the addiction.

[aikoaiko]

75. I know youre frustrated with losing this culture war

But there is no Democratic (liberal or otherwise) future in trying to get guns out of the hands of lawful owners. All we can do is try harder to keep them out of the hands of the prohibited without impacted the civili liberties of those not prohibited.

Unfortunately for some the anti-gun culture war is their reason for being.

[graham4anything]

78. It's not my reason for being however-

I don't care if guns survive.

I want something built, done to make bullets obsolete and to make it known if anyone good or bad in the area has one. Which would make everyone safer.

Good perimeter security could prevent any mass event from happening. (even if it means being scanned or watched.) If I am doing nothing wrong, I have nothing tofear, and as I use e-z pass, or any credit card, and I charge 100% of everything I buy, except for $4 in lottery tickets a week.
I already am tracked and if people wanted to know they know what type of toilet paper I use. I have nothing to hide.

There is security to let us know if anyone enters a theatre with a gun.Trouble with the guns laws is, the people are allowed to carry them in some states and be there.
That is the problem.

Why not just keep the gun at home, right for protection should mean the house
(not chase down an unarmed Trey like Zimmerman did nowhere near Zimmerman's house.)

[glacierbay]

83. Because the vast majority of crime doesn't happen at home

it happens in the public venue, and citizens are responsible for their own personal safety, not me, the only time I'm responsible for your personal safety is when you're in my custody, I'm only responsible for the general public's safety.
I have no issue with CC laws as long as the citizens follow their states laws.
Here are Missouri's CC laws:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000101.HTM

I fully support the CC in MO.

[graham4anything]

86. But if someone has a gun going into a place, a scanner letting someone know

would prevent the person outside from coming in

but you are so afraid someone will take YOUR gun away(why, what are you hiding???)

there are ways to prevent a gun from coming in a place. Problem solved of anyone inside having a gun if they can't bring it in

your logic is like so warped.

you will more easily be hit by a lightning strike and you know it.(or win the lottery 100 times ) than having a perp.

You just seem to all want to be having the guns for what???

[glacierbay]

88. WTF are you talking about

I'm not worried about anyone taking my gun away, I don't even carry when I'm off the job, quit getting hysterical.
Any business is well within their right to install scanners at their entrances, nobody has denied this, just like any business is well within their right to allow CC in their establishment as long as it's legal within their state/city.

Once again, I am not responsible for the safety of individuals unless they are in my custody, you are responsible for your own safety and as long as a citizen CC's legally, I have no issue with it, it's the POS thugs who don't obey the law that is a danger to my safety, not the lawful citizen, and I speak from almost 30 years experience. What's your experience in dealing with lawful CC permittee's?

[graham4anything]

89. If there are no guns inside, then your gun is not needed to stop a gun attack.

that is the whole line of your thinking-you need a gun to stop a perp from using theirs

whereas
I say let's have a system where anyone who has a gun would instantly be known to have, and the gun wouldn't be allowed in

therefore the bad guys would not get in and there would be no need for gun

HOWEVER
because of your gun laws, and good people have guns, that means even if everyone knows who has a gun inside, nothing can stop that person once in from using

I say lets stop the need for a gun inside by having no guns inside


Your whole logic is backwards.

no gun with perp means you don't need your gun to stop that gun (you being regular citizen, cops still have guns

[glacierbay]

90. Your not even making any sense now

it's your logic that's backwards. How do you stop criminals from acquiring guns? Do you plan to just leave the lawful citizens unarmed and easy pickings for the criminals? Why would you do that?
Once again, you have no right to know who owns firearms, none.

[glacierbay]

76. Not true and you know it

you've made this claim and and been proven wrong, so, here are more example of DGU's

Here's another

&feature=relmfu
Oh look, another one

&feature=related
And another one

&feature=related
Do I need to keep going, or are you going to admit you're incorrect?

[PavePusher]

41. Wharfgarble. n/t

[JoeyT]

22. Wow, a lot of people aren't reading past the headline.

They're not able to sue the gun manufacturer for making guns. They're being allowed to sue them because of the claim that they knowingly sold to a dealer that was putting them into the black market.

It's going to be damned hard to prove they knew he was doing that, but not impossible.

[aikoaiko]

23. defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws" if true they might have a case.

We'll see if it's true or if this is just a cynical legal device to go after businesses with deeper pockets.

[sarisataka]

26. So by extrapolating this ruling

Can Brian Terry's family sue the Justice Department?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Amusing

No. Constitutional law (rightfully or wrongfully) stipulates he gave up that right as a condition of employment with the government.

I always find the 'Fast and Furious' critics amusing given how heavily they condemn gun sale tracking initiatives while using that same tracking to critique the government.

[sarisataka]

29. While I do oppose sale tracking

in the form of registration by another name, I have no problem going after dealers who are irresponsible or knowingly supply criminals with a wink and a nudge straw sale.

I find the Hold Everyone Who Ever Touched A Gun Responsible For A Crime group amusing in how they are so willing to turn a blind eye to Government run irresponsibility.

In the above case I see no problem investigating if the dealer was conducting shady sales. Holding the manufacturer responsible, unless they knowingly kept selling to this dealer with the knowledge of his activities, is excessive.



P.S. missed debating with you fightthegoodfightnow, welcome back

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. Thank You

You write: P.S. missed debating with you fightthegoodfightnow, welcome back

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I took a break for awhile. Not everyone has been so welcoming regardless of our disagreements...check this vailed threat out


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=77517

[glacierbay]

31. I've had some spirited debates with you also

I hope I didn't get too contentious with you, if I did, I apologize.

There are subjects we agree with each others on and there are subjects we disagree on. However, we can agree to keep it civil.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. No Need to Aologize- No Offense Taken

...and I apologize if I have as well

Reasonable people can disagree......as we do on somethings....and I agree we can be civil. I often fall short.

[sarisataka]

34. That is rather uncouth

We all want to get to the same place , we just have slight disagreements on what road to take

When internet debates get too stressful it is time to take a break

[PavePusher]

43. There is an enormous difference...

between tracking suspected criminals and trackinging lawful Citizens.

But you knew that, didn't you...

[boppers]

49. We track people who buy explosives and nuclear materials.

(And many other things)

Do you have a problem with that?

[PavePusher]

59. "suspected criminals" and "lawful Citizens", you seem to be confused on those terms.

Authoritarians often are.

This can be remedied.

[NickB79]

33. They'll have to prove a link between the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller and shooter

Which doesn't look all that clear at this point.

The shooter, Daniel Williams, purchased his gun from gun runner James Bostic, a convicted felon who was apparently buying guns illegally from dealer Charles Brown. It doesn't say if Charles Brown has been arrested and charged with a crime, but he should have been charged with multiple felonies if he was indeed selling to a felon. However, at the time Charles Brown was LEGALLY buying guns from MKS Supply, since he had a valid Federal Firearms License. MKS Supply was LEGALLY buying guns from the manufacturer, Beemiller, for distribution to thousands of gunshops nationwide, and Beemiller was legally manufacturing guns for sale.

It's a pretty easy case to make to sue Bostic and Brown, but legally it falls into a grey zone when you move up to MKS Supply, since they didn't violate any laws. It is the responsibility of the BATF to enforce gun laws, yet they didn't revoke Brown's FFL to sell guns. It pretty much falls apart when you get up to the manufacturer, Beemiller.

And that's even without using the 2005 federal shield law as a defense. I don't see this going very far against the distributor or the manufacturer.

[boppers]

54. The BATF needs to start revoking licenses, and putting more people in jail for selling guns.

FFL licences should not be handed out like candy.

Drug tests are required for playing sports, background checks are required to work at banks, and an FFL is *not* required to sell weapons, it's just paperwork.

[bowens43]

51. good! if our elected officials dont have the guts

To stand up to the death merchants maybe can bring tthese bastards down in civil court

[glacierbay]

63. That was already tried

by anti gun states and cities, congress responded by passing a law that says dealers and manufacturer's can't be sued for someone misusing their legal product. Here's the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text#

So, unless a manufacturer knowingly produces a defective product, your dream of civil lawsuits are doomed to fail, and rightly so. Firearms are a legal product whatever you may think about them.

I suspect this case is going to be appealed to a higher level and it will be dismissed.
We shall see.

[PavePusher]

67. "death merchants"?

Is that like "death panels"?

[aikoaiko]

62. Thank you for posting this here. I like when gun policy talk comes out of the gungeon.

[rebuke]

80. Blame the money path

Every time someone is injured or killed with a firearm the blame game starts. Here's the conundrum: Did the weapon work as described by the manufacturer? If it did not was the injury a result of a manufacturer defect? If the firearm worked as designed then the manufacturer is NOT responsible and should not be held so. Now, find the other reasons an injury occurred and place blame/responsibility in line with those facts. Same holds true in your automobile, appliances, tools, ad infinitum. Common sense is devoid in most shooting instances. Litigation and lawsuits are parables for placing blame elsewhere for financial gain. People still kill people with or without guns.

[4th law of robotics]

95. Did the gun malfunction? Operate in some way other than how it was intended?

No?

Then the fault is the person holding the gun.

/I blame Ford, GM, and the UAW for drunk driving.