Judge keeps NYC suit against gun makers alive

A federal judge ruled Friday that New York City's lawsuit against gun manufacturers may go forward, despite passage of a federal law this fall that was designed to protect the firearms industry from such suits.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein said the new law shielding gun companies from lawsuits by cities and crime victims did not apply to New York's case against several major gun manufacturers. In a victory for gun makers, however, he found that the federal law is constitutional.

The legislation, which was championed by the National Rifle Association and signed into law by President Bush in October, barred lawsuits against gun makers or sellers, except for suits that alleged they had knowingly violated a law regarding the sale or marketing of firearms.

The city's case, which claims that gun suppliers violated public nuisance law by negligently and recklessly marketing its weapons, fell within that exception, Weinstein ruled.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20051202-1025-gunlawsuits-newyork.html

"In a victory for gun makers, however, he found that the federal law is constitutional".

Hopefully, Weinstein's finding for the "exception" will fall flat on it's nose.

hurdle, especially where the law isn't codified into statutes, but just exists in judicial decisions. We can only hope.

on the entire nation: gun control more harsh than in many European countries. Here are examples of the present-day anti-gun and anti-gunowner laws already in effect in New York City:

(1)-A total ban, enforced by warrantless search and immediate confiscation without compensation, on firearms possession by anyone who has ever been a "mental patient" -- that is, anyone who has ever seen a psychologist or a psychiatrist as a patient, even once -- defined to include anyone who has ever been in any sort of therapy or counseling (even grief counseling or marriage counseling), no matter how mild or temporary the condition;

(2)-Permits and registration required for all firearms ownership, with a delay of approximately 18 months between application for permit and issuance of permit;

(3)-Confiscation by warrantless search and without compensation whenever a new category of firearms becomes illegal -- something that has already happened several times: absolute proof that registration leads directly to confiscation;

(4)-Total handgun ban: no civilians -- save celebrities and others who can afford approximately $10,000 in fees (plus at least that sum in bribes) -- allowed to own handguns;

(5)-Total ban on all shotguns save single-shots and double-barrel (two-shot) shotguns: no pump guns, no semi-autos -- never mind the fact that a dependable double is prohibitively expensive (you can't get a reliable one for less than about $3,000) or that -- specifically because of the prohibitive cost of doubles -- pump guns have been for 75 years the most popular shotguns in America; this law was enacted several years ago and was enforced by immediate confiscation without compensation;

(6)-A proposed ban on all military rifles, including bolt-action (hand-operated) rifles (i.e., M1903 Springfield, M1898 Mauser, M1896 Mosin-Nagant, the 1888-vintage British Lee-Enfield in all its model-numbers and marks) and even single-shots (i.e., the 1873 Springfield or the British 1870-vintage Martini-Henry) or muzzle-loaders; never mind the fact such rifles are useful only to collectors and target-shooters, this was originally part of an "assault weapons" ban enacted by NY City Council in the '90s; don't know if it became law but assume it probably did;

(7)-A proposed ban (identical to the shotgun ban, and like the shotgun ban to be enforced by warrantless search and confiscation without compensation) that would effectively outlaw all sporting rifles save single-shots and double-barrel rifles (the latter is prohibitively expensive -- a good double-rifle typically costs no less than $10,000 and is useful only on the largest game -- while the least expensive viable American single-shot, the Ruger Number 1, costs about $900 and requires expenditure of at least another $450 in gunsmithing to make it a truly functional rifle; this ban was on the NY city council agenda maybe two years ago -- and I assume it was probably enacted since in NYC no gun control measure has ever been voted down;

(8)-Mandatory storage requirements that require all firearms be kept disassembled and inoperable (and therefore useless for self-defense) unless one is actually on a shooting range (there are several indoor ranges inside the city including a 100-yard underground rifle and pistol range on West 20th Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues);

(9)-Mandatory storage requirements that -- because of the massive weight of the required safes (approximately 500 to 1000 pounds apiece) -- effectively prohibit firearms ownership by residents of most apartment buildings;

There are many other restrictions including restrictions on the sale of ammunition that I am not up-to-date on; I left NYC in the late 1980s and have not been back since.

Police, secret police, intelligence agents, active-duty military etc. are of course exempted from all these restrictions -- including the storage requirements -- which creates the perfect Third World reality: an utterly defenseless citizenry that can be preyed upon at will whenever the criminals or the authorities so choose.

According to various New York Times stories I have seen on this lawsuit -- sorry I can provide no links because they were all on my old (now-dead) computer -- the legal strategy behind it is to (first) hold the gun-makers liable for all gun crime in the United States and (next) seek a federal court ruling that all local and state governments which allow these gunmakers to operate without NYC-type gun controls are accessories after the fact. Hence -- or so it has been explained -- the lawsuit's success would indeed force the imposition of NYC-type gun control on the entire nation, much as other civil suits have forced states to adopt other restrictions.

Sorry I don't know enough about civil law to provide more details, much less an evaluation of the suit's chances of success: I'm a journalist -- mostly a social-issues reporter -- not a lawyer.

But I am very much aware (as are mental health advocates everywhere) of the truly horrifying civil-rights consequences if the suit is successful: creation of a national roster of mental patients, with requirements identical to those imposed by NYC -- see a shrink for any reason, be reported to the police, be forcibly disarmed immediately thereafter. This -- and vehement opposition by mental health professionals -- is precisely why a similar state-level measure was vetoed by a nominally anti-gun governor in Washington 11 years ago. (Pro-gun groups won't touch these sorts of issues: they are terrified of being slandered as advocating "armed crazies.")

Unfortunately, many leftists -- including those who are otherwise nominally libertarian -- dismiss concerns about mental-patient rosters merely because the authorities in New York City (no matter how draconian their hostility toward firearms and firearms owners) otherwise tend to look rather lightly -- at least for now -- on the people their computers list as "mental patients." But there's no telling what the NYC authorities might do in the future, particularly with the ever-more-evident national shift to fascism.

And there's no question how a "mental-patient" roster would be used elsewhere in America: to deny voting rights, to deny driver's licenses, to deny student loans; to excuse police brutality -- anything else the authorities choose to inflict on people adjudged to be "losers": anyone the increasingly synonymous state and marketplace deems undesirable, anyone off whom capitalism can no longer make a significant profit.

Which is yet another example of firearms prohibitions as a slippery slope into a miasma of fascist authoritarianism: a miasma in which ALL rights -- especially those guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments -- are increasingly submerged and drowned.

Note too in this context how the fact this lawsuit was not voided by enactment of the (alleged) ban on lawsuits against gunmakers proves -- once again -- the ultimate Big Lie treachery of Bush and his administration: the say-one-thing/do-another tactics of Josef Goebbels refined by Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and applied to everything from African-American voting rights to Iraq.



Edit: clarification of an important point, elimination of typos, addition of last paragraph.

With your writing background, you were able to lay things out clear as day in an easy-to-read format. . . much thanks!

One would think that NYC is a crime free zone what with all the guns being outlawed.

Is this a true statement?:sarcasm: