Victim sues gun maker, distributor

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by bkt, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Court: Shooting Victim Can Sue Gun Maker, Distributor
    Saturday, 06 Oct 2012 12:01 AM

    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, 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.

    © 2012 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
     
  2. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    so that means its good to go for a violent crime victim to sue the sht out of the brady center for preventing them from carrying a firearm that would have prevented their injuries...
     

  3. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    great news ... now I can sue the SBC for my work accident back in 98'! ;)

    After all, it was their guidelines that permitted for the use of stapling of truss components rather than gussets that were a direct result in my falling 24' through a roof onto a concrete slab! :mad:
     
  4. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,345
    224
    63
    THAT decision will be overturned on appeal. It is directly contrary to law- a law that was passed for this very reason. Comparable to suing Ford because they built a car used by a drunk driver who ran into someone.

    15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.

    The law flatly orders pending cases to be dismissed, and bars filing further cases.
     
  5. NCFlyfisher

    NCFlyfisher New Member

    5
    0
    0
    And how many does the U.S. Firearms industry provide our economy with much needed jobs?

    I doubt this new decision will go forward.

    Heck Mexico tried in 2011: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20056210-10391695.html

    Good thing the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act still had bearing.

    Plus this is in New York where firearms have been a bane.

    Sort of odd since without them some 200+ years ago, New York might've been part of the United Kington...
     
  6. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    So...if the state does not require a license there was no crime selling the guns to Bostic. Who do you sue now?

    Of course it doesn't because the manufacturer and dealer did not violate any statutes. Once again, the Brady bunch grasping at a feeble straw.
     
  7. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,424
    334
    83
    The "Brady Bunch" hasc long preached that lawsuits should be filed over EVERY[/B shooting. Their reasonig is that even though they will lose these suits, if enough of them are filed, they can bankrupt small dealers with legal fee defending agasint them.
     
  8. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Ohio and New York both use the FBI for NICS checks. It is true you don't need a permit to purchase a handgun in Ohio.

    If this guy was a felon and the gun dealer did not have him fill out a 4473 and run a NICS check and find that out, that's legitimately on the seller - he broke federal law. I don't know what Ohio state law says about selling to out-of-staters. Many states won't permit handgun sales to non-residents.

    However, if a 4473 was filled out, a NICS check was run and the go-ahead was given then that's on the FBI and not the dealer.

    I can see no reason to sue the gun manufacturer; that's just leftist gun-grabbing crap.
     
  9. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    I understand this one? Federal Law prohibites the direct sales of a handgun in every state to nonresidents. A nonresident would have to have an FFL or have the gun transfered via an FFL to his home state. This is a play on words no permit needed in Ohio to buy a firearm? The Brady group is pushing the Ill. "FOID" card idea again. They want laws in every state making guns and ammo buyers carry a state issued ID. Beemiller of course is Hi-Point so they make an easy target for Brady.:(
     
  10. Old_Crow

    Old_Crow New Member

    990
    0
    0
    The suit will get shot down like a crow flying over BBQ/dove hunt. The Brady bunch is wasting their resources on this case. How many times can you sue over the same case? Hi Point has cash to deal with this suit like buying bug spray. Other gun makers will support Hi Point under the table. They don't need any precedent for law suits.
     
  11. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    If this progresses, i'm going to end up OWNING Smirnoff Vodkas; their product has contributed to some seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeriously poor dating decisions involving some disguised demons and this one chick that may have been a well-shaved grizzly bear.
     
  12. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Was her name Amanda? Just curious....
     
  13. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    That does it!!! :eek:

    I am going to sue Calloway! It is the clubs fault that my golf game sucks! :mad:

    I am happy to know that I can shoot guns better than I can golf balls. :D
     
  14. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Dang tiny lil triggers on those things.
    ;)
     
  15. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    Is that not the truth?!

    And all those little dents in the ball makes it difficult to figure out where the bullet is going to come out. :D


     
  16. Blueguns

    Blueguns New Member

    1,931
    0
    0
    And THAT folks explains his fear of bears once and for all!
     
  17. DEB

    DEB New Member

    9
    0
    0
    I agree, but the issue I see is that one must still hire an Attorney to bring up the Law. Judges tend to side with Attorneys, not Lay People. So, Brady and their demons, just need to keep bringing up these lawsuits, even if they get thrown out. Attorneys are not punished for frivolous law suits and neither are their clients. It doesn't cost much to initiate a Law Suit, especially if your Attorney is part of your movement. Gunmakers/Sellers must have Attorneys on call just to fight these. Obviously the Courts aren't going to stand up for the Law, as evidenced by the above law suit. Depends on what side of the fence they are on. I couldn't afford 5,000 to 10,000 dollars and those individuals who I purchase from also couldn't.
     
  18. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    And this is how Obamacare was born.

    Frivolous law suits filed by lay people with high priced attorneys against the medical community.


     
  19. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,130
    119
    63
    The case predates the 2005 Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. So far as i know the 2005 act is not an ex post facto (retroactive)law. Thats why the scummy Brady Bunch backed this case.
     
  20. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    Then should not a statute of limitations come into play? :confused: