Court Rules NY Shooting Victim Can Sue Gun Maker, Distributor

[montezumaz]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-n-...022216172.html

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. - Daniel Wiessner

[Maine04657]

Stupidity. Hold everyone and every company EXCEPT for the person who committed the crime responsible.

By this logic the mexican gov can sue Omama for the firearms that made there way to Mexico during F&F!!

[rcairflr]

Originally Posted by Maine04657

Stupidity. Hold everyone and every company EXCEPT for the person who committed the crime responsible.

B
!!

It doesn't fit the Liberal agenda. Don't mistakenly make the assumption that the ruling was made for any reason other than attempting to work towards banning firearms.

[Gun Geezer]

This is the age of reason, not the age of responsibility! Yeah right!

[Maine04657]

Originally Posted by rcairflr

It doesn't fit the Liberal agenda. Don't mistakenly make the assumption that the ruling was made for any reason other than attempting to work towards banning firearms.

The liberal mentality removes all responsibility and places it elsewhere. Be it jobs or guns. No matter you problem they will be the first to tell you it is not YOUR fault.

[time2shoot]

make's me think of this.

[NRA_guy]

Great photo time2shoot . . . but shouldn't the liberal's sign say "gun sellers are accomplices to crime" rather than "of crime"?

And we've been told how intelligent liberals are.

Maybe they're not so smart after all, huh?

[time2shoot]

Originally Posted by NRA_guy

Great photo time2shoot . . . but shouldn't the liberal's sign say "gun sellers are accomplices to crime" rather than "of crime"?

And we've been told how intelligent liberals are.

Maybe they're not so smart after all, huh?

yes

[WHSmithIV]

Legalistically speaking, the judge didn't really have a choice. The defense is claiming protection under a 2005 law whereas the petitioner is attempting to sue for something that happened in 2003. In 2003 the defense wasn't protected by the 2005 law unless it has a retroactive clause in it.

On the other hand, the question will certainly arise as to why the petitioner waited 10 years to sue. Could it be that he wasn't so badly injured to bother? Just another waste of tax paid court time though no matter how it works out.

[Hugh357]

Nothing surprises me that comes out of New York. The state has Bloomberg, Schumer, Rangle, Clinton just to name a few. The entire state should reap based on those they elect. Home of Wall Street, United Nations and full of lawyers.

[millwright]

Originally Posted by Maine04657

Stupidity. Hold everyone and every company EXCEPT for the person who committed the crime responsible.

By this logic the mexican gov can sue Omama for the firearms that made there way to Mexico during F&F!!

Ya' gotta remember, in the liberal lexicon, "instrumentality drives causality", because "it can't be the individuals' fault" ! Denial of this precept would mean everyone is responsible for their actions, hence government can't effect a change in behavior. >MW