Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Mens rea under Calif. gun law | Main | Back home »

Take on Bloomburg's gun suits

Posted by David Hardy · 16 May 2006 07:18 PM

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.

I'd add:

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.

· Gun manufacturer liability

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Don Hamrick | May 20, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply

I have another analysis for protection against harassing lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers.

Congress has no business legislating the Second Amendment through the Commerce Clause to restrict and prohibit Second Amendment rights. At best they can use the Common Defence clause of the Preamble and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights to legislative Second Amendment rights in the affirmative for the guarantee of a Republican form of Government.

AMERICAN COMMON DEFENCE REVIEW
http://americancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/

I hope to soon turn the namesake AMERICAN COMMON DEFENCE REVIEW into a real "no-compromise" Second Amendment advocacy group to compete against the NRA for what they don't or won't do for the Second Amendment.

Leave a comment