Spitzer’s Nuisance (Spitzer is NY Attorney General)

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by WAGCEVP, Jul 2, 2003.


    WAGCEVP New Member

    May 25, 2003
    The gun lawsuits seek to turn tort law on its head.
    To hold manufacturers liable for the criminal or
    neligent use of their product by a consumer
    would certainly not end with guns. This is one
    of the main reasons that some trial lawyers have
    had a huge interest in the gun control side winning.
    More potential lawsuits against more types of
    companies. It is an attack on free enterprise.

    The New York Sun; Date:Jun 30, 2003; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:6

    Spitzer’s Nuisance

    When it comes to press coverage, as is well known, New York State attorney general Eliot Spitzer enjoys a charmed life. When he gets to the courtroom, on the other hand, the spell has been known to break. On Tuesday, a state appeals court handed Mr. Spitzer a stinging defeat, ruling 3-1 to sustain a lower court’s dismissal of his lawsuit attempting to obtain gun control by hauling into court the companies that manufacture guns.

    Mr. Spitzer unveiled the suit three years ago at a press conference alongside Andrew Cuomo, who was then housing secretary for President Clinton. At the time, gun control advocates had been running into trouble obtaining new legislation in either the Congress or in Albany,where the large hunting community upstate makes its voice heard.The solution? Mr. Spitzer and more than 30 big-city mayors decided to sue to get the control they wanted, forcing gun-makers to the settlement table where they’d agree to new constraints on the firearms trade — much as tobacco-makers had capitulated in 1998. And presto: Stricter gun control, without the bother of having to win votes in Albany or Washington.

    That was the plan, at least, when Mr. Spitzer sought kudos for making New York the "first state" to file suit against the gun industry. For "first" we can now read "only" — even Mr. Spitzer’s activist Connecticut counterpart, Richard Blumenthal, hasn’t followed suit (See below) . Evidently eager to contribute something distinctive in the line of legal analysis, Mr. Spitzer staked the state’s claim on a truly novel theory: That guns, lawfully produced and sold or not, should be reclassified as a legal "nuisance," akin to drifting smoke or straying animals, that prevent neighboring residents from peacefully enjoying their domiciles. Even some of his allies found that a long stretch, but Mr. Spitzer blustered about how he had "a strong case built upon a solid legal foundation," based on "a clear statute," "repeated conduct that clearly violates the law," and so on.

    Just in case the logic of the nuisance theory proved elusive,Mr.Spitzer was not above falling back on blunter methods."If you don’t sign," he threatened Glock, which was refusing to follow its larger competitor Smith & Wesson into signing a "voluntary"deal with the feds,"your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door"—a comment widely construed as referring to the ruinous costs of legal defense.And as the Smith & Wesson deal itself careened toward collapse, Mr. Spitzer threatened other gun-makers with antitrust prosecution for having dropped their cooperative efforts with Smith & Wesson, including joint legal defense.The point was sheer intimidation: Why else menace smaller companies with antitrust penalties for failing to enter an agreement to restrain trade with the largest firm in their industry?

    Having ventured so far out on his limb, Mr. Spitzer soon found the courts were sawing it out from under him. In April 2001, in a unanimous and devastating 7-0 opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected the most important elements of the much-hyped Hamilton v. Accu-Tek lawsuit, which had sought to tag gun-makers with retroactive liability for misuse of their products bycriminals.Since the claims of industry responsibility made in Hamilton closely paralleled those Mr.Spitzer was making in his suit,the odds weren’t looking good. And sure enough, in August 2001, Judge Louis York of the trial court in Manhattan threw out Mr. Spitzer’s case.

    Like a gambler doubling down, Mr. Spitzer chose to argue the appeal personally rather than sending a staff lawyer. No luck. Of the four appeals judges in Tuesday’s opinion, only one thought he’d managed to state a viable claim.As Judge George Marlow noted in his majority opinion, the theory that gun-selling is a nuisance, if accepted by the courts, would have no obvious stopping point: "Such lawsuits could be leveled not merely against these defendants, but well beyond them, against countless other types of commercial enterprises, in order to address a myriad of societal problems — real, perceived or imagined — regardless of the distance between the causes‚ of the problems and their alleged consequences, and without any deference to proximate cause."Moreover,Judge Marlow rebuked Mr. Spitzer’s attempt to use litigation to achieve victories for the gun control lobby without the need for legislation: "Courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns."

    A spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer says he’s considering an appeal. He should cut his losses.

    Mr. Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is author, most recently, of "The Rule of Lawyers."
    (Political Hype - Never a resolution or publicized results. Wasted effort - Our $$)

    State looking into charge gun firms are targeting Smith & Wesson
    Friday,March 31, 2000 Associated Press

    HARTFORD - An antitrust investigation has begun into allegations that
    gun manufacturers are targeting Smith & Wesson in retaliation for its
    agreement to put safety locks on handguns, Connecticut's attorney
    general said.

    The probe is being conducted under state laws in Connecticut, New York
    and Maryland, said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. He said more
    states were expected to become involved and subpoenas were imminent.

    Ken Jorgensen, a Smith & Wesson spokesman, said some gun dealers opposed
    to the settlement will no longer carry the company's models. He also
    said the Springfield, Mass.-based company has received reports of
    attempts to pressure gun publications into refusing Smith & Wesson

    A gun wholesaler said after the March 17 agreement it would no longer
    distribute Smith & Wesson products.

    "There is, at this point at least, the appearance of an effort that
    involved concerted activity targeting Smith & Wesson by manufacturers,
    distributors, dealers and possibly others," Blumenthal said Wednesday.

    Robert Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation,
    denied the allegations of a conspiracy. "I could not be more confident that these are just independent actions by businessmen," Delfay told The New York Times.
    Blumenthal said investigators and attorneys from all three states were
    interviewing witnesses but he declined to be specific.

    Maryland Attorney General Joe Curran said the attorneys general wanted
    to send a message to the firearms industry.

    "If Smith & Wesson is trying to do the right thing by being a more
    responsible gun manufacturer, we don't want competitors or others to
    prevent them from trying to do the right thing," he said.