Legal Gunmakers lose appeal challenging New York public nuisance law

Not California but it does set precedent in the the federal system.

Gunmakers lose appeal challenging New York public nuisance law

---

Summary

• Law exposes gun industry to civil lawsuits for violence
• Court says New York not preempted by 2005 federal law
• Gun manufacturers called law unconstitutional

---

NEW YORK, July 10 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a New York public nuisance law exposing the gun industry to possible civil lawsuits for violence caused when people use their products.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected a facial challenge to the law by the National Shooting Sports Foundation trade group and 14 members including Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson (SWBI.O) and Sturm, Ruger (RGR.N)

Signed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in July 2021, the law lets New York, local officials and the public sue manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers for endangering people's safety and health through sales of firearms and ammunition.

In a 3-0 decision, Circuit Judge Eunice Lee said the law was not preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which shielded the firearms industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes.

Lee said Congress intended to preserve "at least some causes of action" for knowing violations of state firearms sales and marketing laws, and New York's law was not vague about how the gun industry could comply.

She also said the law did not violate the U.S. Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce, citing the law's public health and safety goals and absence of specifically identified economic burdens.

A spokesperson for the gun industry plaintiffs had no immediate comment. The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who defended the state law, also had no immediate comment.

Circuit Judges Raymond Lohier and Dennis Jacobs joined Lee's decision. Lee was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden, Lohier by Democratic President Barack Obama, and Jacobs by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

In a grudging concurrence, Jacobs said "there is every indication" New York intended to contravene federal law, but he was "constrained to agree" the state law could be applied legally.

He nonetheless faulted lawmakers for having "contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to gun industry members and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors. The intent of Congress when it closes a door is not for states to thus jimmy a window."

The appeals court upheld a May 2022 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino in Albany, New York.

The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc et al v James, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-1374.

Undoubtedly, this will be appealed further.

 

[tomrkba]

Interesting. So NY is not going to follow Federal law.

 

[USMC06RET]

Interesting. So NY is not going to follow Federal law.

Rest assured, if this survives appeal to SCOTUS, it will not just be the State of New York.

 

[DesertDepotArms]

if it survives SCOTUS it could potentially sink the gun industry.

 

[treelogger]

Not California but it does set precedent in the the federal system.

Does it? I think it is only precedent in the NY circuit, not in the 9th.

Interesting. So NY is not going to follow Federal law.

The court said exactly the opposite. Even the republican appointee judge said that NY's law follow federal law, although the NY legislature "intended to contravene", but didn't.

if it survives SCOTUS it could potentially sink the gun industry.

The US legal system is capable of sinking pretty much any industry.

 

[USMC06RET]

Does it? I think it is only precedent in the NY circuit, not in the 9th.

The principle of stare decisis, meaning "to stand by things decided," is the foundation of precedent. It dictates that courts should generally adhere to prior decisions when faced with similar legal issues.

In this case, the decision was handed down by a federal appeals court pertaining to federal law. Federal law is the same in every state and jurisdiction, nationwide.

So, to answer your question, yes it established a national precedent until such time as it is overturned on appeal or congress changes the law.

 

[treelogger]

Nope, it's more complex.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System – National Agricultural Law Center

nationalaglawcenter.org

"Federal circuit court decisions are not binding precedent on any other federal circuit or district court outside of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, this sometimes leads to contradictory decisions among the different circuit courts on the same legal issue. Further, federal circuit court decisions are not binding on the state courts that are geographically located within the boundaries of the circuit’s jurisdiction. For example, a Mississippi state court judge is not required to follow decisions of the Fifth Circuit."

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Matthew-Schafer-FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

"Not all prior opinions are created equal, however. Sometimes prior decisions are binding on courts; courts must follow these binding precedents. In other instances, prior decisions are only persuasive; they provide good rules of thumb, but do not necessarily dictate the result."

In general, circuit (appeals) court decisions are binding in their own circuit, not binding in other circuits. And they are binding only if the fact pattern is the same.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Nope, it's more complex.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System – National Agricultural Law Center

nationalaglawcenter.org

"Federal circuit court decisions are not binding precedent on any other federal circuit or district court outside of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, this sometimes leads to contradictory decisions among the different circuit courts on the same legal issue. Further, federal circuit court decisions are not binding on the state courts that are geographically located within the boundaries of the circuit’s jurisdiction. For example, a Mississippi state court judge is not required to follow decisions of the Fifth Circuit."

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Matthew-Schafer-FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

"Not all prior opinions are created equal, however. Sometimes prior decisions are binding on courts; courts must follow these binding precedents. In other instances, prior decisions are only persuasive; they provide good rules of thumb, but do not necessarily dictate the result."

In general, circuit (appeals) court decisions are binding in their own circuit, not binding in other circuits. And they are binding only if the fact pattern is the same.

Binding vs persuasive

 

[USMC06RET]

Nope, it's more complex.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System – National Agricultural Law Center

nationalaglawcenter.org

"Federal circuit court decisions are not binding precedent on any other federal circuit or district court outside of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, this sometimes leads to contradictory decisions among the different circuit courts on the same legal issue. Further, federal circuit court decisions are not binding on the state courts that are geographically located within the boundaries of the circuit’s jurisdiction. For example, a Mississippi state court judge is not required to follow decisions of the Fifth Circuit."

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Matthew-Schafer-FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

"Not all prior opinions are created equal, however. Sometimes prior decisions are binding on courts; courts must follow these binding precedents. In other instances, prior decisions are only persuasive; they provide good rules of thumb, but do not necessarily dictate the result."

In general, circuit (appeals) court decisions are binding in their own circuit, not binding in other circuits. And they are binding only if the fact pattern is the same.

Didn't say anything about the precedent being binding, just that it is precedent in the federal system. Also didn't say that it was establishing precedent for state courts, only federal.

Precedents can be either binding or persuasive. My earlier abbreviated description of stare decisis stated "It dictates that courts should generally adhere to prior decisions". "Should Generally Adhere" is an important phrase. If I had been teaching first year Civil Procedures and or Constitutional law, I would have been more expansive and, sent you a bill. Also, in the federal system, a precedent established in one federal circuit is binding in all federal district courts in that circuit and it is considered to be "a persuasive precedent" in all other federal circuits.

 

[Soldieringon]

If I had been teaching first year Civil Procedures and or Constitutional law, I would have been more expansive and, sent you a bill.

 

[Soldieringon]

Also, in the federal system, a precedent established in one federal circuit is binding in all federal district courts in that circuit

Is this still true with the new ruling that says that courts can only act within their own jurisdiction and cannot bind the federal government across state lines?

 

[USMC06RET]

Is this still true with the new ruling that says that courts can only act within their own jurisdiction and cannot bind the federal government across state lines?

Binding in all federal district courts "in that circuit". So, yes. A ruling by the 9th circuit court of appeals is binding in all federal courts in the 9th circuit and it is considered to be a persuasive ruling throughout the other districts in the federal court system. When you think about it, it makes sense, it's expected that the same circuit court of appeals is going to rule the same way, on the same issue across all the district courts under it's jurisdiction.

 

[Soldieringon]

Binding in all federal district courts "in that circuit". So, yes. A ruling by the 9th circuit court of appeals is binding in all federal courts in the 9th circuit and it is considered to be a persuasive ruling throughout the other districts in the federal court system. When you think about it, it makes sense, it's expected that the same circuit court of appeals is going to rule the same way, on the same issue across all the district courts under it's jurisdiction.

No that's clear. I misread.

 

[USMC06RET]

No that's clear. I misread.

I get that! I do it all the time.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

So we can now sue car manufacturers for crashes?

Computer manufacturers for viruses, crashes, hacks?

Building material manufacturers for faulty/ bad material 20 years after they have been built?

 

[USMC06RET]

So we can now sue car manufacturers for crashes?

Computer manufacturers for viruses, crashes, hacks?

Building material manufacturers for faulty/ bad material 20 years after they have been built?

People in the US have always been able to sue anyone for anything (an oversimplification). If you can make the case that your damages were a direct result of manufacturer's negligence, you'll be a winner. If your damages were a result of normal wear and tear or owner abuse, you'll lose.

However, this thread is not about product defect lawsuits, it's about the Public Nuisance law passed by the state of New York and how it can be used to sue gun manufacturers. In a nutshell: "The law allows firearm sellers, manufacturers and distributors to be sued by the state, cities or individuals for creating a "public nuisance" that endangers the public's safety and health." (Reuters).

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

So syringe manufacturers (the skinny ones with orange tips that is found in many city streets) and homeless outreach/ organizations and beer/ liquor manufacturers/ distributors?

/s.

 

[USMC06RET]

So syringe manufacturers (the skinny ones with orange tips that is found in many city streets) and homeless outreach/ organizations and beer/ liquor manufacturers/ distributors?

/s.

Understanding that you are being sarcastic, if you feel you have been damaged by anyone or anything, take the issue to a reputable law firm and see if they will represent you on a contingency basis, that's your best clue that you might actually have a case, be it New York, California or anywhere in-between.

If you are interested in the nuances of the Public Nuisance laws vs. the PLCAA, this is a fairly decent article on the topic:

Public Nuisance Liability and the Irrelevance of the Second Amendment | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[treelogger]

So we can now sue car manufacturers for crashes?

Computer manufacturers for viruses, crashes, hacks?

Building material manufacturers for faulty/ bad material 20 years after they have been built?

Yes, you can sue anyone for anything. All it takes is (a) writing up the complaint, in the format the court demands, and (b) paying the required filing fees. Most suits of this nature are dismissed by the court, with roughly half a minute of looking at it. To have a reasonable chance of the suit surviving longer, it would be a good idea to get help from someone who is skilled in the law, and skilled in how to write complaints, and how to litigate them. That will typically cost anywhere from 4 to 5 digits, 6 digits in complex or fundamental cases.

Sadly, in the US we have what's called "American rule", which roughly says that both parties pay for their own legal costs (with few exceptions, such as SLAPP). So you'll probably get away with just paying the 4 to 6 digits explained above. Most other civilized countries use "English rule", where the losing party pays for the legal costs of the winning part. With English rule the suits described above get 2x to 10x more expensive.

On the other hand, many lawsuits are filed with pretty clear intent to lose. There are two good justifications for that: (1) You sue, just because you know that the other side can't afford the cost of defending itself, and will "settle", meaning pay your blackmail demand. This happens in business cases all the time, and it is why the American rule is so evil. (2) You sue because you are funded by supporters, and you know that a loss in court will rile up your supporters even more, causing them to give you more money, part of which you can use to line your pockets. This pattern of actions is typical for advocacy organizations, and gun rights groups are Exhibit A in this rogues' gallery.

 

[Experimentalist]

Firstly I find it disappointing that our legal system is so highly dependent on the individual opinions of Judges. A better system would consider just principles and thus be guided.

Secondly: A judgement in a given Circuit court is only binding in the States that compose that Circuit. There often is significant influence of that decision across other courts as they consider similar cases, but the hard and fast impact is confined.

The reference cited here (https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/0...y-and-the-irrelevance-of-the-second-amendment) is interesting but clearly slated. Casting a weapon that is engineered to effectively provide service as a self-defense weapon - or as a tool to oppose governmental tyranny - as marketed to criminals betrays the agenda of the author.

A fundamental principle of law holds that when an activity is legal, those factors that enable that activity are also legal. We have the right to vote on various things. Thus the right to transit to a public polling place, or to vote remotely. So too the Second Amendment provides the right to the tools for self-defense or to oppose governmental tyranny. Thus the supporting elements are also legal, including suitable magazine capacity, semi-auto capability, etc.

As others have pointed out earlier, the principles behind the PLCAA are universal throughout commerce. One can not sue a liquor company or an auto manufacturer because a drunk driver killed a family member. By the logic of the public nuisance tactic I could sue bumper sticker manufacturers and road side billboard owners for the nuisance they present.

I am hopeful this new angle to curtail individual rights is squashed soon.