BAD-BAD-BAD-BAD 4th district court...
This is a discussion on BAD-BAD-BAD-BAD 4th district court... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; If it is the 2nd amendment or as in Mexifornia** the prop to label food, if there is a buck to be made the legalize ...
October 12th, 2012 06:30 PM
If it is the 2nd amendment or as in Mexifornia** the prop to label food, if there is a buck to be made the legalize group will find away and try to get you back into Serfdom! That the progressive mind set, you work for the government and at their whim.
** read the book before making a statement for which you are un-informed! Mexifornia: A State of Becoming: Victor Davis Hanson: Amazon.com: Kindle Store
Or if you can read here is the audiobook: Mexifornia: Victor Davis Hanson: 9780786189274: Amazon.com: Books
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke
October 12th, 2012 06:33 PM
I can fault them.
The people that got asbestos out of brakes and home insulation were more concerned with your health than your freedom.
Using tatics like this will eventually lead to the very act of self defense being illegal, such as it is in England, where you get arrested for using a gun to defend yourself in your own home. Where the perp has more rights than the homeowner.
Is that what we really want?
If you are uncertain about the means used to acheive a goal, then your brain is telling you that it's probably not right, you just havent come to terms with it yet.
don't like their goal, am uncertain about the ethics of their tactical legal approach
hecks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
October 12th, 2012 06:46 PM
A very real issue. In the past decade as many states were turning to CHL, it was in practice not all that uncommon to see, essentially, the last person standing charged with a crime of violence. Thankfully, there appear to be far fewer such instances publicized these days, though I don't know whether that really equates to a reduction in incidence. I'm assuming so, but who's to say for certain.
Originally Posted by HotGuns
We all need to stay vigilant, whatever else can be said.
Amazing that a product liability case can be allowable based on anything other than product failure (ie, as in a "kaboom"). Amazing that any jury allows mere claim of liability to masquerade as the truth when the real issue is criminal misuse of a product. Amazing that claims of criminal infractions (ie, straw purchases or other trafficking) aren't strictly handled via the DA and wholly disallowed via the civil court system. What a world we've allowed.
October 12th, 2012 07:11 PM
In some states, firearm/ammo manufacturors are protected from such frivilous actions.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
October 12th, 2012 07:56 PM
BAD: NY Court Decission
NY Court’s Decision in Gun-Liability Case Described as Groundbreaking - Law Blog - WSJ
October 12, 2012, 11:49 AM
NY Courtís Decision in Gun-Liability Case Described as Groundbreaking
By Sam Favate
A decision last week by a New York State appellate court to reinstate a gun liability lawsuit is being held up as a landmark by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that a Buffalo man who was shot nearly a decade ago can sue the manufacturer of the weapon, as well as the distributor and dealer. This case marks the first instance of a court holding that a gun manufacturer or distributor can be held liable under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, according to the Brady Center.
A lower court had tossed the case, based on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that protects gun manufacturers and sellers. But the appeals court held that the law, which was signed by President George W. Bush, doesnít provide immunity to gun companies that illegally supply gun traffickers or irresponsible dealers, Reuters noted. The case now goes back to the trial court.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
October 12th, 2012 08:55 PM
That is very disappointing.
October 12th, 2012 08:59 PM
This is a decision that many saw coming. It sets the stage for a federal court battle over the legislation, which seems to be needed for just about any statute that actually does something in our world today. The political "team" that disagrees with the law will almost always sue to attempt to legislate from the bench that which they could not accomplish in the legislature.
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North
October 12th, 2012 09:02 PM
October 12th, 2012 09:03 PM
Personally, yes, I absolutely object to that. If you want to smoke like a chimney and die of lung cancer that's your business. Those things were called "death sticks" long before we were "lucky" enough to have a surgeon general there to warn us that inhaling smoke may not be so good for you after all. This is absolutely unjustifiable, and the lawyers who pursue this type of frivolous litigation should be disbarred. I think most of these idiotic lawsuits could go away with a simple "loser pays" rule. The lawyers who continue to pursue blatant stupidity like this need to be forced to find a new profession. They are a cancer upon our civilization.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
October 12th, 2012 09:08 PM
Merged 2 additional threads on same topic.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
October 13th, 2012 08:22 AM
Maybe now. It was an entirely different world when those lawsuits first started. Big Tobacco was obfuscating the cancerous effects and actively denying the addictive effects, marketing to children, secretly formulating more addictive mixes, and putting on (known-to-be) ineffective 'protective' measures but also putting cough-suppressants into the leaves.
Originally Posted by peckman28
It was a world where the average victim was fooled into starting smoking as a child, and then resoundingly blamed for personal weakness when they couldn't quit as adults. Those corporations deliberately acted evilly in order to give their shareholders and executives large amounts of money. The executives pocketed millions of dollars for every year they could delay customers from figuring out that they were plotting against them.
There's no analogy to the gun industry - there's no corporate-based 'obfuscation' of the deadly effects of using a gun on a person, there's no marketing of an addictive product to children. To approach the evil of Big Tobacco, the gun industry would've had to devise a gun that released crack-cocaine into our palms every time we aimed at a person, and then denied (on the stand) that aiming guns at people was unwise.
October 13th, 2012 10:13 AM
And right through the 1940s our own government was actively recommending that people smoke. Cigarettes were even issued to our soldiers. What basically happened is that the government went too far one way, then completely over-reacted the other way. This is the nature of government intervention, and it all could've been avoided if the government hadn't put itself into the position of telling people what is or is not healthy. In a world of genuine free market capitalism, the flow of information would've simply allowed people to make their minds up about what they would or would not do. If you become addicted to cigarettes, it's your own fault. It was easily observable to anyone what they would do, and as far as the "victimized children", their parents have themselves to blame for letting them smoke, and the role of government telling people it's good for you cannot be overlooked.
Originally Posted by CanuckQue
Quite frankly I see a lot of parallels between the case of tobacco and the case against the gun industry. Once again, "the poor children" are being victimized. We demonized a smoking culture, and we've now been seeing all kinds of attempts to demonize the gun culture. Companies who are making products that are dangerous if misused, or overused, are being blamed when people misuse them or are harmed by them. The bottom line is, if you buy a pack of smokes, or a gun, you know what you're getting into. The government needs to butt out and let people make their own decisions, and be responsible for the consequences. Anything else is immoral, vague, and undermines the premise behind all the freedoms you enjoy. It is inconsistent to say that the role of government is to protect you from your own stupidity in one instance, but in another it is perfectly fine. When we buy into that, we typically end up with "compromise" that allows the government to "protect" you in both instances, and your freedoms are eroded that much more.
October 13th, 2012 10:57 AM
A lot of what you say is true, but that doesn't change the fact that Big Tobacco was actively lying about their product. When something's harm is measured over the decades. the liars who cause that harm are partially to blame. I don't buy the idea that it's wrong to sue a corporation for lying about and obfuscating the harms that their product causes. The idea of 'personal responsibility' swings both ways, of course those executives got to keep their millions once they were paid, it's only the shareholders who would've suffered in the long-run.
There's just no analogy to the modern gun industry. The dirtiest trick I can think of them doing is making their weapons easy to modify to circumvent the automatic weapon bans. There's no obfuscation about the dangers of firing a gun, none. It's a whole different game than what was played by Big Tobacco.
Oh, sure, the gun culture and the smoking culture are being demonized - no argument there. But the sheer level of tort-worthy malfeasance by Big Tobacco was enormous and deserved punishment. Those lawsuits were legitimate, BT actively deceived about their product.
October 13th, 2012 11:54 AM
Thanks for posting that. Quite interesting.
Originally Posted by Sig 210
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
October 13th, 2012 01:42 PM
Those are the big questions. Bostic was not an Ohio resident. His purchase of handguns in Ohio is illegal under the gun control act of 1968. So if it can be shown that the dealer who sold them knew he was not an Ohio resident he also is in violation of the gun control act of 1968. If it can be shown that distributor selling the guns to the dealer, and the manufacturer selling them to the distributor also knew that they were shipping guns that were to be sold illegally they are on the hook too.
Originally Posted by oneshot
The question is can they show that the manufacturer, distributor, and dealer knew or should have known the transactions were illegal.
That lawful commerce protection only applies if the commerce was lawful. Here, at least part of it was not.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
Search tags for this page
4th district gun ruling
mexifornia a state of becoming victor davis hanson free audio book
ny court?s decision in gun-liability case described as groundbreaking
Click on a term to search for related topics.