BAD-BAD-BAD-BAD 4th district court...

[oakchas]

Approves lawsuit against Beemiller (HiPoint) and SKS (distributor), by victim of shooting...

Story here: http://touch.chicagotribune.com/#sec.../p2p-72743996/

This sets a very bad precedent..if it continues...

I thought the law prohibited this type of suit...

Brady Bunch is behind it of course!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Knightrider]

I thought there was laws against this type of BS. Show me someone that sue a manufacturer for what someone else did, and I show you someone that is just looking for a payday.

[ArkhmAsylm]

-
Just another weakness in the Illinois governmental thought process. I am of the opinion that the manufacturer and the distributor will ultimately be released from this suit. Not so sure about 'Charles Brown', the seller.


That link wouldn't work for me, so here are two alternatives on the ChiTrib's site:

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

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

[gasmitty]

So why aren't they including the BATFE as a defendant in the suit, since they "approved" Brown for an FFL? Clearly they were guilty of bad judgement.

I thought the Zeroth Law of Litigation was "sue everyone in sight and go for the deepest pockets."

[ccw9mm]

Looks like the lawsuit isn't one of claimed criminal misuse of a product. Rather, it's a claim the mfr/distributor broke laws in making their product available.

The claim is that the mfr/distributor violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

It'll be interesting to see exactly what statutes were violated. Apparently none have been specifically identified so far.

[Sig 210]

I thought there was laws against this type of BS.

The case predates the federal law.

Gun bill limits makers' liability - Baltimore Sun

[mcp1810]

Looks like the lawsuit isn't one of claimed criminal misuse of a product. Rather, it's a claim the mfr/distributor broke laws in making their product available.

The claim is that the mfr/distributor violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

It'll be interesting to see exactly what statutes were violated. Apparently none have been specifically identified so far.

I think that will be the key. If they can be shown to have violated the law then I don't believe they would be protected by the lawful commerce act as their violations clearly make that commerce unlawful. If no specific violations can be shown the case should get tossed.

[hogdaddy]

I Read Albany & it was'nt Ga. That's as far as I read ; )
H/D

[mlr1m]

Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Looks like the lawsuit isn't one of claimed criminal misuse of a product. Rather, it's a claim the mfr/distributor broke laws in making their product available.

The claim is that the mfr/distributor violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

It'll be interesting to see exactly what statutes were violated. Apparently none have been specifically identified so far.

If the manufacturer knew the dealer was irresponsible shouldn't the Government have known as well? Isn't that the whole purpose of the Government licensing activities to begin with? To ensure that laws are being followed and for the safety of society? If we cannot rely on the Government licensing to protect us from irresponsible dealers maybe we need to do away with that requirement all together.

Michael

[CanuckQue]

In general, it's tougher to sue the government. They have the ability to pass laws setting a higher bar, and they often use that ability.

[OldVet]

I stopped reading the article at: Chicago Tribune and Albany, New York. I knew nothing else after that was going to make sense for normal people.

[oneshot]

This will be thrown out eventually, because of these two paragraphs from the first link posted byArkhmAsylm in post #3.

From article;
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.

So if everyone followed the rules in Oh, then how can they claim negligence?


AND;

"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.




Again, if no laws were broken in the transactions in Oh then they are just grabbing at thin air, and will not have a case.

[ANGLICO]

The Paitriot Post (Blog Entry-Opinion)
By Arnold Ahlert · October 11, 2012

....(the end of the piece)....As for this particular case, the long term -- and progressive -- objective is clear: the Second Amendment can effectively be overturned without having to go through that "messy" process of acquiring the approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures to do so. All we have to do is get enough courts to hold enough gun-makers liable for crimes committed with firearms, and we'll eventually make it impossible for gun manufacturers to remain in business. Make no mistake: that's what these legal termites and their enablers are hard at work trying to do.

And for the very first time since the 2005 law was enacted, a court is letting them do it.

The rest is a must read: Shooting Down the 2nd Amendment, One Lawsuit at a Time

[Hopyard]

Just curious, and putting this up to stimulate some discussion. Did you object to this tactic as much
when it was used to damage the economics of the tobacco industry and the ability of
habitual smokers to do their thing?

I don't like their goal, am uncertain about the ethics of their tactical legal approach, but can't fault them for
trying something which has worked well in many other matters; e.g., getting asbestos out of
brakes and home insulation.

[ANGLICO]

Just curious, and putting this up to stimulate some discussion. Did you object to this tactic as much
when it was used to damage the economics of the tobacco industry and the ability of
habitual smokers to do their thing?

I don't like their goal, am uncertain about the ethics of their tactical legal approach, but can't fault them for
trying something which has worked well in many other matters; e.g., getting asbestos out of
brakes and home insulation.

Sir, using that same rationale, we can solve most Healt Care Cost issues by Tort reforms. Just that there is less money to be made by making lawyers answer to common sense.

Good point you made.