Expected, But Still Nice To See

Expected, But Still Nice To See

From March 9, 2009 Dow Jones News Service:

New York sued several gun manufacturers in 2000, arguing the companies violated a state public nuisance law with their marketing and distribution of the firearms products they sell. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC), Colt's Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR) and Glock GmbH.
A federal law enacted in 2005 sought to shield gun makers from lawsuits like the one New York filed, prompting a federal judge to throw the case out. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in April 2008 upheld that ruling by a 2-1 vote.
New York, in a court brief, said the 2005 law violates state rights under the U.S. Constitution. "This congressional effort to control how states make law raises important questions about the Tenth Amendment's protections of state sovereignty," New York said.
The gun manufacturers, in a joint legal brief, said the federal appeals court correctly applied the 2005 statute and argued the law does not violate the Constitution. "This case does not qualify for Supreme Court review," the gun makers said.

This was one of those "negligent marketing" suits that claimed the gun makers intentionally sold more guns than there was any legitimate market for, in order to arm criminals. Now, if New York State didn't have very strict handgun licensing laws, or if it was legal for New Yorkers to go buy handguns in other states, I could at least wonder. But what this suit was really saying is: "Federal law and state law work together to make it effectively impossible for many New Yorkers to legally buy a handgun, therefore our gun problem has to be push marketing caused." What nonsense.