Court Rules NY Shooting Victim Can Sue Gun Maker, Distributor

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by montezumaz, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. montezumaz

    montezumaz Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    Central AZ (Yavapai County)
    http://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-n-y-shooting-victim-sue-gun-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
  2. Maine04657

    Maine04657 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Maine
    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!!
  3. rcairflr

    rcairflr Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,715
    Location:
    Wichita, Ks
    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.
  4. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Location:
    Central Florida
    This is the age of reason, not the age of responsibility! Yeah right!
  5. Maine04657

    Maine04657 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Maine
    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.
  6. time2shoot

    time2shoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,001
    Location:
    Brandon SD
    make's me think of this.

    Attached Files:

  7. NRA_guy

    NRA_guy New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Location:
    Mississippi
    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?
  8. time2shoot

    time2shoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,001
    Location:
    Brandon SD
    yes :D
  9. WHSmithIV

    WHSmithIV Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Moore, Idaho
    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.
  10. Hugh357

    Hugh357 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    Iowa
    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.
  11. Millwright

    Millwright Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    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
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr First Circuit Court rules its legal to film cops Sep 1, 2011
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for People Convicted of Minor Domestic Violence Mar 26, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Court: USA Kids Can't Wear Flags--To Avoid Racial Strife Feb 27, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Supreme Court vs Obama Feb 16, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Arizona Court Allows Muslims to Torture Children Nov 14, 2012