Suit Against Gun-Makers Spreading

J

JBP

New member
Baltimore may join the New Orleans initated suit against gun manufacturers.

http://www.sunspot.net/cgi-bin/editorial/story.cgi?storyid=1000000202846

I'm just surprised that since Glendening won by such a large margin on an anti-gun campaign that the State of Maryland does jump on the bandwagon as well.
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
OK...consider this:

Similar to tobacco, this is shakey legal ground, no precedents. On the other hand, there is evidence that Tobacco lied and made it more addictive...however, Gun Manufacturers (GM) haven't lied, haven't made products that do not do anything other than what they are meant to do...fire projectiles.
They aren't blowing up and hurting the user.

So...my opinion is as follows, Cities engaging in such suits are:
1) Guilty of misuse of public funds
2) Guilty of abuse of public trust.
3) Guilty of extortion
4) Guilty of unconstitutional means of creating a revenue source
5) Guilty of creating loss of business
6) Guilty of harassment of legal businesses
7) Guilty of abuse of the legal system
8) Guilty of abuse of power
All this relates to the elected officials in these cities. Publicize this...Cities engaging in such suits can not win and if they do it will be overturned on appeal. Thus, such suits will cost millions of $$$ that the cities must pay out. And the officials sanctioning and allowing these suits are out of control. It is not the responsibility of the GM how the guns are used, any more than Ford or General Motors are responsible for how their vehicles are used.

If one of these suits is successful, then [/i] every single business and type of business is vulnerable to governmental extortion.
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Additional thoughts...

Legally, the Gun Manufacturers can counter sue the cities and the individual officials
 
R

Rob Pincus

New member
I forget the specific details, but I believe it was John Ross who talked the MO state legislature from approving a law that would make the owner of a firearm responsible for any harm darm by the weapon if it were stolen.
The logic was that the law could be used against owners of Cars, gasoline tanks and anything else that could be used to hurt someone or someone's property.

Seems lke this same train of thought can be used in these recent law suits. Can Texaco be sued because an arsonist used gasoline purchased under the star of the american road "improperly"?
What about requiring special locks on cars to keep anyone but the rightful owner from using them, we all know that many more cars are stolen than guns every year and certainly cars are involved in more deaths and injuries....
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
We elect mayors and councilpersons to run the city, not experiment and get creative with law.

If the Gun Manufacturers react aggressively from the gitgo and slap counter suits on the cities and the individual officials..and pursue these aggressively, this new anti-gun concept will dry up in a hurry.

Bankrupting some elected officials, pissing off their constituents when they see tax dollars wasted on these suits will clear this up in short shrift.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
C

chris in mo

New member
There has been talk around here that St. Lousi is going to jump on the bandwagon also. I was wondering though, since everyone is liable for everything these days, can we sue these cities if we are victimized by someone they release from custody?

Since most crime is committed by repeat offenders it should be pretty easy to end up with many people who have been victimized by someone that the city has failed to properly isolate from the public. We could work up several individual suits, since the only people who win with class action suits are the lawyers, then donate the money to the gun companies. Sound like a plan?
 
R

Rob Pincus

New member
yes amd no, Chris. I've donated enough time and money to gun companies.. but you are on the right track. If I were you, I'd get in touch with John Ross's group. There are very active and right in your back yard. Might as well work with them.
 
E

Ed

New member
IMHO this is a ploy by liberal big city mayors to break the gun manufacturers with legal expense of defending the lawsuits. They must know that a winning decision would be reversed at a higher level, but they can afford the legal costs much better than the smaller gunmakers, many of which are constantly on the verge of going under. I wouldn't be surprised to find that HCI has a hand in this.
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Ed..

On the contrary, cities can not afford to piss money away like that, have no right to use public monies like that and all public officials involved are embezzlers.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
L

longhair

New member
Ed, you know HCI has a hand in this. we need to contact the gun manufacturers and urge them to fight instead of folding!!!
What the hell has gone wrong in this country?? :( i just can't seem to figure it out. think i'll go run over somebody w/ my truck so they can sue ford!!!!!!


------------------
longhair
 
P

pate

New member
Maybe crime victims in Baltimore and Chicago should sue those cities for preventing them from being able to defend themselves by exerting their Second Amendment right to carry a weapon.
 
E

Ed

New member
DC.


I know they could not afford to p*** away money if they were interested in doing a good job for their constituents, but many of these guys are ultra-liberal povery pimps who are more interested in furthering their left wing agenda than good governance. I watch Atlanta T/V channels, and the mayor down there seems to fit the description above pretty well. I wouldn't be surprised to see him follwing the lead of these others.
 
C

chink

New member
the best law suit it right here is Bay Area. this family is sueing Beretta because they claim the round in chamber indicator is either non-existent or inadequate. They are sueing cuz the father took the clip out of his Beretta (looks like a 92FS), but didn't eject the chambered round. Later on in the day, his sons was shot by a friend because the pair 7 years thought the gun was unload. I don't know. may it just me, but I think the father should be brought up of charge of stupidity and laziness because he left the gun where the kids could get to it, and because it didn't take the 1/2 second to pull back the slide and eject the chambered round. I don't know about you'll, but that guy should not be allowed to have children because it determential to the gene pool.

garrick
 
W

Walt Welch

New member
One significant fact seems to have been overlooked in this litigation.

The city of Chicago sent undercover agents to perform acts so as to make the dealers think that the agents were breaking the law, or intending to do so.

How can the gun MANUFACTURERS be responsible for what the firearms DEALERS are doing? ATF certainly has the jurisdiction over FF Dealers, but they weren't (to my knowledge) involved in the 'sting', and even so, if ATF wants to prosecute DEALERS, they can. How a city can decide to sue MANUFACTURERS is beyond me.

Perhaps Los Angeles (which is contemplating legislation against gun manufacturers) could follow Chicago, and sue the automobile manufacturers for dealerships selling excessive cars in outlying areas, knowing they will probably be driven into Los Angeles. Their case would be more logical, as the manufacturers in this instance, do have some control over the dealers.

Hoping this helps, Walt Welch
 
T

TAZ

New member
Unfortunately, suing the cities is not a real option. Warren vs District of Columbia and other rulings clearly stated that government is in no way responsible for the safety of the individual citizen. The Warren case was brought against DC and the PD there b/c 3 women were forced to endure 14 hours of rape and abuse b/c a dipatcher lost their call for help. Funny how we are legally bound to pay our taxes, but theyare not legally bound to use that $$ in our interests :( About the only way to go would be some sort of civil rights violation. Or just start suing every single manufacturer you can think of for damages caused by their products being misused by someone. I have been in 3 wrecks I guess I should sue GM, Ford and Toyota for allowing some idiot to run red lights with their products. I mean couldn't they put some sort of device that automatically engages the breaks when nearing a red light??? How many of you have been involved with DUI's. You should sue the alcohol manufacturers simply because they did not make sure that people can't get drunk from their products. For those of you using a computer at work maybe you can sue bth youe employer and the maker of your PC for Carpal Tunnel syndrome. A rash of stupid suits would wake people up in a hurry.
 
D

DonL

New member
Hmmmm, a class action suit by the citizens of Chicago against said city for curtailing and limiting the citizens' Constitutional civil rights to keep and bear arms. Make the city fight a battle on two fronts. Is there any precendent specifying how much a person's rights are restricted or curtailed before a suit can be brought? Mostly a rhetorical question, but it makes me curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top