Take on Bloomburg's gun suits
Gun Law News has a very good analysis of the effect of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act on the latest NYC suits.
1. I doubt that NYC meets the requirement that the plaintiff be directly injured by any alleged violation. At most, they claim to have paid someone else's bills.
2. There may be dormant commerce clause problems with a civil suit, against an out of state company, on the claim it sold to some persons in its state (I assume the alleged straw sales were to residents) and should be liable in NY for a transaction in, say, PA, on the theory that someone else might thereafter use a gun illegally in NY.
3. The suit seem pretty flimsy to me. Why bring them? I can only think of (a) publicity; (b) try to drive up insurance rates for ALL dealers, and hence get rid of them or (c) the fix is in.
On the last, gun mfrs have had a heck of a time with Judge Weinstein in that district. I heard one of their attorneys remark that in one suit the plaintiffs had essentially cheated in order to get suits assigned to him -- they'd filed cover sheets to the complaint, claiming that Weinstein was handling a related case, which he then was not, but naturally that led the clerk to assign the case to him. Plaintiffs then did not serve the cover sheet on defendants -- they only found out when they looked at the court file.