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.

 

[USMC06RET]

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.

Considering that humans created the laws, how would you suggest the laws be adjudicated if not by human judges?

 

[Experimentalist]

Considering that humans created the laws, how would you suggest the laws be adjudicated if not by human judges?

*Sighs* Implementation is often the challenge.

The principles founding and intended to guide our Nation are so Noble, such deep thought from brilliant minds. Often distorted by the lens of individual experience or corrupted by ulterior motives.

And still I haven't answered your fair question. I'll... Get back to you on that.

 

[treelogger]

Firstly I find it disappointing that our legal system is so highly dependent on the individual opinions of Judges.

It is not an individual judge. If you think the first-level judge have the wrong answer, you can appeal to a panel of 3 judges, then perhaps to a larger panel (7 Supreme Court justices in state court, 11 or fewer federal judges in an en-banc panel), and then finally 9 Supreme Court justices. So it takes somewhere between a baker's dozen and over two dozen judges to come to a final disposition.

And there is no known other authority we could consult which would be any better. Legislatures, whose members are replaced much more frequently, would be a much worse source of truth.

A better system would consider just principles and thus be guided.

The principles founding and intended to guide our Nation are so Noble, such deep thought from brilliant minds.

First, the principles are not particularly noble, nor are the minds of the founders particularly brilliant. Our society has made the constitution the primary guide to how we live together, and most of what you call nobility simply derives from its age: a quarter of a millennium.

But neither constitution nor laws are not self executing, nor self explanatory. To know what the constitution and laws even mean, we have to consult someone in case opinions diverge. And that someone is the courts. It is not seriously disputed that since Marbury, the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular have the authority to interpret all law.

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.

While there is a grain of reason in what you say, it is far from simple. "We" don't actually have the right to vote. That right is restricted to US citizens, age 18 and above, and several categories of those are not even allowed to vote (convicted felons in jail for example, in most states). And the fact that we are allowed to vote doesn't justify all voting related activities automatically. For example, if someone decides to campaign for a vote, but forgets to file all required paperwork with the SOS, FPPC or FEC, and follow all the campaign disclosure and finance regulations, they will be in a world of hurt, and will stop campaigning. An an extreme example: Just because I'm allowed to travel to vote does not mean I can drive 90 mph or go down the wrong way on a 1-way street.

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.

The question whether magazine capacity can be restricted is still being hotly debated, and is not settled. For full auto, it is quite clear that this is not unrestricted legal, and won't be in the foreseeable future.

 

[Experimentalist]

It is not an individual judge. If you think the first-level judge have the wrong answer, you can appeal to a panel of 3 judges, then perhaps to a larger panel (7 Supreme Court justices in state court, 11 or fewer federal judges in an en-banc panel), and then finally 9 Supreme Court justices. So it takes somewhere between a baker's dozen and over two dozen judges to come to a final disposition.

Thank you for your detailed response. It's always helpful to me to gain perspective from the legally literate.

Your point above is well taken and of course correct. My intended point is very often we see divergence of opinion along party lines. Judges appointed by Democrats tend to lean one way, those appointed by Republicans another way. A generalization, but often true. I'm wishing for people to put aside their bias when performing as judges.

A quick internet search yields a Judges oath:

“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

"Faithfully and impartially". That's what I'm asking for.

And there is no known other authority we could consult which would be any better. Legislatures, whose members are replaced much more frequently, would be a much worse source of truth.

On that we robustly agree.

First, the principles are not particularly noble, nor are the minds of the founders particularly brilliant.

Civics class was a long while ago for me. But I distantly recall much of the principles of our Nation were based on philosophies of the Ancient Greeks, some of whom were certainly brilliant. And many of those principles indeed showing qualities of a high moral character.

The question whether magazine capacity can be restricted is still being hotly debated, and is not settled. For full auto, it is quite clear that this is not unrestricted legal, and won't be in the foreseeable future.

Appreciate the magazine capacity issue remains unsettled; here's hoping that is settled both soon and favorably to us in the shooting community.

There does seem to be some interesting openings with the dropping of the transfer tax for certain NFA items. And the law limiting the civilian transfer to pre-1986 firearms is but 39 years old, a political compromise to manage passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA). Which reinforces my earlier point, that in an ideal world our rights shouldn't be regulated by the ideological prism of an individual or collection of individuals, nor should it be negotiated away in political compromise.