Supreme Court Turns Down New York City Case Against Gun Industry

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

The Supreme Court has turned away pleas by New York City and gun violence victims to hold the firearms industry responsible for selling guns that could end up in illegal markets.

The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.

The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.

The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.

Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428903143

[tangent90]

1. Excellent news!

...

[Metta]

2. Happy karma, justices who supported this. Don't take the warm clothes.

You inherit part of the suffering you cause by this.

[derby378]

3. The responsibility now rests on the gun dealers themselves

Let's say that I run a small shop that manufactures handguns. I've secured a couple of government contracts for my pistols, and I want to sell them to the general public as well. After careful research, I start selling the guns through 12 dealers across the nation who have a great reputation for above-board sales. One of the dealers winds up under new management and starts doing some shady deals. I pull my support from that dealer, but they're legally entitled to sell of their remaining stock of my handguns. After that date, someone buys one of my handguns from that dealer using a straw purchase and uses it to rob a few banks and hold off police in a five-hour standoff in which two cops and the bank robber are wounded. Are you saying that I should still be sued despite my attempts to sell firearms only through reputable dealers?

[onehandle]

6. It was your choice to deal in a dangerous product.

Don't want risk and controversy?

Sell teddy bears.

[derby378]

7. You say "dangerous," but how?

It's getting back to the old analogy of cars. Should Toyota be held liable for selling hybrids to rich teenagers who then get busted for DUI accidents?

[onehandle]

8. Ah. That old canard.

Cars are not weapons. They are designed to transport people. Guns are designed to kill people.

[derby378]

13. An emotional argument, but not a legal one

Given that I've made a sincere good-faith effort to keep my handguns away from the criminal element, I cannot be held liable.

You could, however, argue that one possible solution would be for the government to assume control over all firearm manufacturing for civilian, military, and law enforcement end-users alike, but I don't think that idea would get very far.

[WriteDown]

14. So guns that are designed to kill animals are fine..

right? Seems like all they need is new labels.

[brolin1911a1]

24. Most Guns Must Be Defective

You say; "Guns are designed to kill people."

If that were true, then most guns must be defective. With an estimated 250 million-plus guns in private hands in this country, very, very few are ever used to kill a human being. A far greater number by a factor of 100x or more, are used to defend, to protect human beings. All of the guns owned by me and the people I know are designed to defend people.

That is the crux of this entire lawsuit effort. The plaintiffs concentrate on the minority firearms that are misused and ignore the benefits of firearms ownership. I'm approaching three score years and I've never known anyone who was a "victim of handgun violence." But I know several people who are alive and uninjured today because they had a right to have a firearm and I count myself among that number. Contrary to the claims of Mayor Bloomberg and his friends among the Brady Bunch, the good of firearms greatly outweighs the bad. As they love to say, if it saves only one life and guns do save lives.

[onehandle]

26. Wayne LaPierre? That you?

Thanks for the propaganda.

[FudaFuda]

28. a closed mind is closed no matter which side of the door it's on.

and brolin1911a1, right on! Great post.

[brolin1911a1]

32. Knowledge Will Set You Free

Thank you, FudaFuda.

My comment was not propaganda. It was a rational argument based on facts.

I can thank my college Comp & Rhet 101 teacher, Mrs. Holloway, for opening my eyes back in the early eighties. She expressed her belief in British-style gun control with complete bans on handguns and permits issued upon showing "need" for long guns. When I wrote papers supporting the 2nd Amendment's clear language opposing such things, she requested that I back my arguments with facts. That forced me to research both sides of the issue.

What I discovered was that those supporting gun control almost invariably either lied outright or reduced the issue to simplistic slogans that hid the truth. Just one example is the oft-repeated claim that 80% of all homicides are committed by family or close friends. The truth, I learned, is that the FBI's National Crime Report said, "80% of all homicide victims are known to their assailants." That could be a drug deal gone bad, a convenience store clerk robbed and killed by a repeat customer, or a woman raped and killed by a neighbor in her apartment building who'd been stalking her, None of these would be "family or close friends" but would be "known to their assailant." That's just one example of the way the gun control crowd mistates the issues.

I also learned that more often than not the NRA actually understated its arguments. Often the potential abuse in a bill the NRA opposes is far worse than the NRA acknowledges in its warnings. But, so as not to appear "unreasonable" the issue is understated.

Finally, for real thought-provoking knowledge, look up the British Blackwell Commission of 1919 and the real reason that firearms restrictions where first implemented in that country. Then look at the parallels between British gun banning efforts and those of the USA since 1920. Read, research and the truth shall set you free.

[Jackson1999]

39. really?

How about guns are designed so people can defend themselves?

[AlbertCat]

19. Ahhh! The "CAR" argument!

One more time:

What is a car made for?


What is a gun made for?


What is the purpose of a car?


What is the purpose of a gun?


When you use a car correctly, what are you doing?


When you use a gun correctly, what are you doing?

Answers:

transportation...to get from point A to point B

to kill something

to get from point A to point B

To kill something

You are driving from point A to point B

You are exploding a projectile whose purpose is to kill something.


When you kill someone or something with a car, it is an ACCIDENT, a MISTAKE.... not the FUNCTION OF THE CAR.

When you shoot someone or something with a gun, you have not made a mistake. You are using the device for the purpose it was intended.


GOT IT?

Shut up with the stupid illogical "Car" argument. Find another red herring.

[FudaFuda]

23. What if a car is sold to a known drunk?

If Billy-Bob's used cars sells a 1984 Chrysler Cordoba to Otis the Drunk, who everyone knows is a drunk, is it Chrysler's responsibility when Otis goes out driving drunk and kills 6 people? Cuz that is an applicable analogy to this situation.

[brolin1911a1]

31. A Tool Is For Whatever Purpose Its Owner Uses It

That series of straw man rhetorical questions and answers shows an amazing ignorance of both automobiles and firearms. (Ignorance is the lack of knowledge or schooling on a topic and in no way reflects upon one's mental abilities.)

Just as automobiles are devices which transport occupants for a number of reasons, so firearms launch projectiles for a variety of reasons. Since first being introduced to firearms at just under age eleven, I've seen firearms used to launch tens of thousands of bullets. Most killed nothing and were not intended to kill anything. They did nothing but punch holes in paper, make steel gongs ring, or ventilate plastic beverage containers. Most of the time the cartridge was a .22 caliber rimfire, something notoriously inefficient for killing anything larger than a rabbit or a squirrel.

But my guns have also killed. When that happened, it was called "hunting" and put nice tasty nutritious wild meat on my table. Or helped control animals that the state had designated as "noxious pests." And in the process, the license fees and the taxes on the firearms and ammunition used went, via the Pittman-Robertson fund, to fund conservation efforts.

And finally, there are firearms the purpose of which is to defend the lives and well being of their owners. Credible, peer-reviewed studies have shown that 2.5 million+ crimes each year are halted when the intended victim is either armed or perceived to be armed by the would-be assailant. That means men and women who go unrobbed, women who go unraped, and intended assault victims who remain alive and unbeaten because a gun made the difference with regard to being a victim.

Yes, those guns can kill. They would be a poor deterrent if they could not. The more likely those guns are to be able to kill the more likely is the criminal facing them to decide crime doesn't pay. Or at least that the particular crime and armed victim are a bad idea.

If you live in an area where only the criminals have guns, then blame your state and city government for keeping the guns out of the hands of the people who need them. But don't blame the guns.

[derby378]

40. I think the adults should be in charge of this debate for a while

Those old emotionally-charged paradigms won't work anymore. Time to evolve new ideas...

[FudaFuda]

16. So, if marijuana is legalized, growers will be responsible for everything smokers do? n/t

[onehandle]

25. Marijuana isn't a weapon either.

And there's not a chance in Hell it will be legalized.

[FudaFuda]

29. Potential 4 harm to others is there, regardless. Same for alcohol.

Read my post at #23.

[FudaFuda]

11. And BATFE.

We already have federal laws, and an entire friggin' Federal agency, that has the job of doing what these lawsuits were trying to push off on the manufacturers. Every BATFE agent out there probably knows who the bad apple dealers are in their jurisdiction, and yet after the fact we hear about how ONE dealer allowed umpteen-thousand guns to be sold over his counter for illegal transport from Georgia to NYC. But instead of anyone saying, 'hey BATFE, you fucked up!', NYC wants to hold a manufacturer liable for not keeping track of the 7th time a pistol they made in 1977 was re-sold?? Stupid.

[AlbertCat]

15. Nice screenplay! Maybe Miramax will pick it up!

but what your stupid story has to do with:

It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

....is beyond me. "Monitor"...."frequently"....

Perhaps you meant to post on the "paranoid gun advocates" thread.

[derby378]

17. All of your snarkiness aside...

...it depends on what standards our legislators demand that gun manufacturers abide by.

As someone else already pointed out, the ATF deserves part of the blame for not catching more shady dealers in the act.

[brolin1911a1]

34. It Depends On the Spin

The issue is not necessarily "shady dealers." New York, Mayor Bloomberg, et al have carefully made that claim by simply tallying up the number of guns traced by BATFE (whether stolen, used in crime, found in a ditch or whatever) and then labeling the dealers with the most such guns traced back to them as "shady." But is that valid?

I have a friend in California living in L.A. county. There is one Federally licensed dealer in that county. One. That dealer servers a county of approx. 10 million people. How many guns does that dealer sell a year? How many are traced back to that store after being sold, resold, resold again, and then perhaps stolen? If that stolen gun is recovered, it will be traced. Was it used in a crime? Technically yes even though the crime was the act of stealing it. But if that dealer sells 100,000 guns and 1% are traced each year that still leaves 1,000 "crime" guns traced to him by the standards of the people filing this lawsuit.

Compare that to the dealers in my area. I live in a rural county of approx. 35,000 people. There are at least ten FFL dealers in that county. As a guess, each sells 30 - 60 guns a month judging by the store where I worked for awhile. Rounding up towards the high end, that's about 700 guns a year. Even if every single gun they sold were actually involved in a genuine crime and traced, they still would not equal the number of guns traced back to that lone, law-abiding and conscientious dealer in L.A. Or, for that matter, the number traced back to Wal-mart simply because they are the largest dealer in the county.

So, it has nothing to do with unsavory or unscrupulous dealers and everything to do with the way in which those who want to end the right to own firearms attempt to portray honest tradesmen selling an honest traditional legal product.

[derby378]

36. Fair enough, but...

I think FFL dealers do need to ask themselves once in a while how to better screen potential customers. This means going beyond Form 4473 and NICS, and I know a lot of dealers already do this to begin with, but there's always room for improvement.

The staff at the LA shop definitely has their work cut out for them - I wish them well. Depending on how difficult it is to set up another shop in the county, doing so could be a wise move that would reap some considerable profit while taking some of the burden off the current dealer at the same time.

[TheCoxwain]

20. Well, you technically profit from sales despite discontinuing relationship with shady dealer..

If you buyback all your guns from that dealer the minute you terminate your relationship - Only then should you be shielded.

Obviously - you can be smart and protect yourselves with a contract with the dealer that will include option for gun buy back at a throw away price. If dealer in question is in breach of state rules and that should force automatic exercise of the options.

This should do two things

1) Dissuade the dealer from doing stupid things because he will take a big hit financially

2) Hold the Manufacturer responsible when it is responsible. How can you justify having guns with a dealer you 'KNOW' is shady?

[derby378]

27. Good arguments

It would indeed make sense to work into the contract some provision that allows me to recoup the remaining stock allocated to a particular dealer provided that I've lost confidence in that dealer to provide consistently legal transactions and nothing but. This would help demonstrate that I was trying to be a good citizen as well as a good businessman.

I do remember this one instance where an exclusive distributor of specialty playing cards (name withheld) decided to sell only through its on-line store, but a gaming dealer whose store is only about 5 miles from my home legally acquired a bunch of sample decks from this distributor and started selling them at his shop. The distributor found out about this, and after a little discussion, the distributor agreed, "You acquired the playing card decks legally, and you may sell off your remaining stock, but you may not order any decks from us for the purpose of resale." This is the worst-case scenario that I envisioned in my earlier post, in which I could not recoup my handguns from a dealer because of legal reasons.

[Metta]

35. Despite an ocassional good effort, how well has that been working?

Given that we have more gun deaths than all of Europe.

[derby378]

37. Not exactly a fair comparison...

Take Europe, for example. Semi-auto is legal in Switzerland. Full-auto is legal in the Czech Republic if you can get a collector's license. UK and Irish citizens are limited to bolt-action or pump-action rifles and shotguns. Silencers can be purchased over-the-counter in Finland, but you still need a license for that hunting rifle.

Gun laws in Europe make up a pretty diverse tapestry. Perhaps a "per nation" ranking of annual firearm deaths can give us a better picture.

[FudaFuda]

38. Over half of USA gun deaths are suicide, but our suicide rate is much l/t many Euro countries

Your statistic : "we have more gun deaths than all of Europe" doesn't tell the whole truth.

52% of all gun deaths in the USA in 2005 were suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide


In Europe, where guns are not readily available as an easy means of offing oneself, other means of suicide are employed. But the lack of guns sure doesn't stop them - lots of European countries have suicide rates per capita that are waaaaay higher than the USA. For example, the USA has about 17.7 suicides per year per 100,000 people. Belgium's is over 30 per yr. Lithuania's is more than double that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death

notice that in Switzerland and Finland, where gun ownership is common, the suicide rate by firearm is almost the same as in the USA.

(yeah, i know wikipedia sux for a source)

What if all those European suicides were being done by gun, instead of pills or car exhaust or whatever it is they do? Or more accurately, why don't you discount 52% of the USA gun deaths you're counting (because they were suicides), and then see what the numbers are? If you did that, I still do think the USA would have the higher firearm homicide rate, but the statistic wouldn't be so artifically skewed. We still have drug and gang related violence making us look bad - but gun control won't do a damned thing to fix those problems. It's drug prohibition and the 'war on drugs' industry that's to blame for that problem. You can make guns illegal all day long and not a single drug dealer will turn in his gun. But if you make marijuana legal, millions of Americans will no longer need a street dealer. Simple.

[onehandle]

4. That's our SCOTUS supporting corporate rights.

And of course the gun industry's lobbyist group, the NRA.

[derby378]

5. See #3 above (n/t)

[primavera]

9. It's the American way

No one bears any responsibility for anything; no one is accountable for anything; the only law is who's quickest on the draw.

[MicaelS]

10. Excellent!!!

These lawsuits are just an underhanded means to enact another form of Prohibition via the Judicial system since the anti-gunners know it will never pass the Legislative.

[Lasher]

12. Well good.

That was a slippery slope we didn't need to go down.

[tammywammy]

21. Agreed n/t

[maxsolomon]

18. to the Gungeon with ye!

gun threads, bleah.

[Mojorabbit]

22. I enjoy gun threads

and I don't see why they need to go to the dungeon. One does not have to click on a thread if they are not interested in the subject line after all.

[Pavulon]

30. And another back door attempt fails...

one day the people who pander this shit will figure out that we have figured out their lie. The days of look good feel good worthless gun control is over.

These lazy fuckers should just go ahead and say they are going to address root cause, poverty, drug law, and failing education system, among others. Really this action just says "we think you are morons, look at this shiny thing while we do NOTHING to make the situation better"

[NickB79]

33. Excellent news.

[X_Digger]

41. Thank goodness! nt

[benEzra]

42. Good. (n/t)