Courts Continue to be Losing Arena
for Anti-Gun Extremists
|
"...[The] parties most directly responsible ... are
the individuals who unlawfully misuse them [handguns], i.e. criminals.
But for their conduct, the nuisance alleged here would not exist..." |
|
|
-- Acting Supreme Court Justice Louis B. York |
|
Spitzer |
Last week was even more devastating to the litigious agenda of anti-gun
extremists than originally reported.
The week opened on Monday, August
6, with the California Supreme Court's overwhelming 5-1 rejection of an
anti-gun, reckless lawsuit that had been spearheaded by the gun-ban
lobby formerly known as HCI - a staggering loss for Sarah Brady's group we
covered in last week's Alert.
The week closed on Friday with the
dismissal of New York State's reckless lawsuit against the law-abiding
gun industry, a decision handed down after we had gone to press. The
California decision put a halt to the gun-ban lobby's attempt to hold a
gun maker responsible for the despicable acts of a lone madman, while
the New York case is one of several suits filed by anti-gun politicians
who are trying to convince the courts that the firearms industry should
literally pay for every criminal or negligent act that involves a
firearm, even when the industry is in full compliance with the law.
The New York suit was pushed, at taxpayer expense, by New York's
anti-gun Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer tried to argue that
firearm manufacturers and distributors should be held responsible for
the actions of violent criminals - even though they comply with the
thousands of laws and regulatory standards that dictate how firearms
are manufactured, distributed, and sold.
But acting Supreme Court
Justice Louis B. York dismissed Spitzer's allegation that the legal
manufacture and distribution of handguns constitutes a public nuisance.
Justice York stated that the "parties most directly responsible ... are
the individuals who unlawfully misuse them [handguns], i.e. criminals.
But for their conduct, the nuisance alleged here would not exist."
York ruled in People v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, the court's approval of
Spitzer's novel theory would have the unwanted "effect of preventing
defendants from engaging in activities, i.e., the manufacture and sale
of guns, that they are permitted to engage in by law in an area which is
strongly controlled by various federal and state statutes."
We can anticipate Spitzer will appeal last week's ruling, but the next
stop in his quest to wipe out the production and distribution of a
lawful, constitutionally-protected product, is the New York Court of Appeals.
That court already
rejected a similar reckless lawsuit earlier this year, ruling in
Hamilton v.
Accu-Tek that firearm manufacturers cannot be held liable
when their legally produced, legally distributed, non-defective products
are used by violent criminals.
Related Stories...
More Info About Reckless Lawsuits Against Gun-Makers
|
