Illinois Appeals Court Decision
- Thread starter PATH
- Start date
There was a thread here somewhere. If you can find the case citation, PLEASE post it. Every single news source across the country is simply reprinting the ISRA's press release, which doesn't mention the case even by title. Journalists are indeed lazy, lazy people.
It does say that the decision was published on December 31st and that it's from the First Appellate Court (the one in Cook County.) But a search at Findlaw.com reveals that their list for December 2001 ends abruptly at the 18th. I looked for this info for a week with no dice.
To make a long story short, the First Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the lawsuit which alleges that Bryco, Navegar, Smith and Wesson and maybe others are liable for several shooting deaths, most notably CPD Office Ceriale. They justified this by saying that the gun manufacturers may represent a "Public Nuisance" by manufacturing weapons they know will then be marketed to criminals. This makes little or no sense, since that term is usually applied to crack houses, brothels, and other places where illegal activities take place, not legal manufacturers of legal products. Apparently (as I say, I haven't been able to get my hands on the decision) they cited the application of the "Nuisance" label to industrial factories which made legal products but released toxic waste into residential areas as precedent allowing them to do this. Of course, that would mean comparing guns, which are tools and weapons, to toxic waste, which has no known use.
Apparently the old canard about Navegar marketing the DC-9 to criminals also played a role. This is so frustrating--I only know this stuff second hand because a local talk-radio-host-cum-lawyer got a copy of the decision and read a few small blurbs. He mentioned that Navegar markets their guns as "fingerprint-resistant" (which has been refuted) and that they sell the guns with silencers (I doubt that, since that would be a felony under Illinois law--why not prosecute them for that?) and, best of all, that they sell their guns with--are you ready for this? You're gonna be horrified:
SLING SWIVELS!
That's right, sling swivels "facilitate spray-firing."
Lord, save me from the stupidity. I'll post a copy as soon as I get my hands on one, which is looking like it will take a long time.
Anyway, this apparently only means the issue will be argued. The head judge of the three-man panel is apparently well-known for being in Daley's pocket and, since Daley's parallel lawsuit might now get farther in court since this very similar one has been upheld, speculation as to what Daley knows about the judge is rampant.
But I'm sure that's just a lot of silly gun owners being paranoid again.
It does say that the decision was published on December 31st and that it's from the First Appellate Court (the one in Cook County.) But a search at Findlaw.com reveals that their list for December 2001 ends abruptly at the 18th. I looked for this info for a week with no dice.
To make a long story short, the First Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the lawsuit which alleges that Bryco, Navegar, Smith and Wesson and maybe others are liable for several shooting deaths, most notably CPD Office Ceriale. They justified this by saying that the gun manufacturers may represent a "Public Nuisance" by manufacturing weapons they know will then be marketed to criminals. This makes little or no sense, since that term is usually applied to crack houses, brothels, and other places where illegal activities take place, not legal manufacturers of legal products. Apparently (as I say, I haven't been able to get my hands on the decision) they cited the application of the "Nuisance" label to industrial factories which made legal products but released toxic waste into residential areas as precedent allowing them to do this. Of course, that would mean comparing guns, which are tools and weapons, to toxic waste, which has no known use.
Apparently the old canard about Navegar marketing the DC-9 to criminals also played a role. This is so frustrating--I only know this stuff second hand because a local talk-radio-host-cum-lawyer got a copy of the decision and read a few small blurbs. He mentioned that Navegar markets their guns as "fingerprint-resistant" (which has been refuted) and that they sell the guns with silencers (I doubt that, since that would be a felony under Illinois law--why not prosecute them for that?) and, best of all, that they sell their guns with--are you ready for this? You're gonna be horrified:
SLING SWIVELS!
That's right, sling swivels "facilitate spray-firing."
Lord, save me from the stupidity. I'll post a copy as soon as I get my hands on one, which is looking like it will take a long time.
Anyway, this apparently only means the issue will be argued. The head judge of the three-man panel is apparently well-known for being in Daley's pocket and, since Daley's parallel lawsuit might now get farther in court since this very similar one has been upheld, speculation as to what Daley knows about the judge is rampant.
But I'm sure that's just a lot of silly gun owners being paranoid again.
How long does something have to be the industry standard before it's no longer "longer than usual?" How does a sling swivel "facilitate spray firing?" Why is it that a DC-9 is large, a Bryco 59 is small, and both are bad things? Why is it that Navegar, its distributors, and everyone who owned that DC9 weren't prosecuted for the felony offense of possession of a suppressor? Could it be that this is a load of crap?
That would be the decision of the original court. I will confess here that this is probably legally correct, but I don't get it. Lawful conduct is illegal if you don't like it? Doesn't that give anybody who can convince a judge the ability to outlaw anything he doesn't like, de facto if not de jure?
Ahhhhh. . . . now I see. What it boils down to is that in order to survive this motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs don't have to lay out any evidence at all that their allegations are true--only that, if true, they would constitute a public nuisance. Since they're alleging that the gun makers essentially conspired to "create and sustain an underground market for illegal firearms" and to destroy public safety, they've got that covered. Of course, there's no way in heck they can show evidence of any of that. How old is Navegar? How about Bryco? They created the black market in Chicago?
Yeah, sure.
That's it, Don. In Federal parlance, the plaintiffs survived a Motion for Summary Judgment, which can only be granted if there are no issues of fact in a lawsuit. The procedures weed out patently frivilous suits from cluttering up the docket. The plaintiffs have alleged nuisance claims in an argument that COULD be viable, so they have a right to be heard. The ruling has ZERO effect on the actual case except that the plaintiffs will be spared the consequences of having filed a frivilous suit.