Attempted Undermining of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ~ Williams v. Beemiller

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- The New York Supreme Court recently ruled that a man shot by a gang member did not have standing to sue the retailer that legally sold the gun.  The court has been winding its tortuous way through the process for over a decade. Williams was shot in 2005.

As the case was appealed yet again, it became clear that the gun seller, Brown, had acted completely within the law. He had even contacted the BATFE to make sure the transactions were legal. From buffalonews.com:

Attorneys for Williams had argued that Brown should have known that Bostic intended to sell the guns illegally in another state based on conversations in which he mentioned opening gun stores in Ohio and Buffalo.

Second Amendment rights advocate Steve Felano with the organization 2AWNY said the ruling “is a situation where logic prevailed over emotion.”

The shooting “really has nothing to do with the underlying statutes that the case brought,” Felano said. The firearms dealer appears to have made the sale lawfully and there was no way he could have known that the gun would have ended up in the hands of a gang member, he said.

The case mirrors other cases that are trying to hold gun sellers and manufacturers liable for shootings, he said.

The case went to the Supreme Court of New York. The court found that Brown had acted legally.  Because of procedural issues, the manufacturer and distributor still have to fight the case in New York courts.  From Williams v. Beemiller opinion:

Plaintiffs appropriately condemn the scourge of illegal gun trafficking affecting our state and others, which takes an enormous toll on injured parties and their communities. However, notwithstanding the sympathetic facts in this case, we must neutrally apply the well-established precedent of this Court and the United States Supreme Court, which precludes this action from proceeding against Brown in New York, while leaving claims against the manufacturer and distributor pending. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs

Williams was represented by the chief counsel for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. From sfchronicle.com:

Williams was represented by Jonathan Lowy, the chief counsel for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The group’s spokesman, Max Samis, said it is disappointed by the ruling and is considering next steps.

“In the meantime, an active suit still exists against the firearm distributor and manufacturer, and we look forward to pursuing the case against the remaining defendants,” he said.

Williams’ lawsuit also names Beemiller Inc., an Ohio firearms manufacturer, and MKS Supply Inc., a wholesale firearms distributor in Ohio. Thursday’s decision doesn’t dismiss his lawsuit against the companies.

The major philosophical difference in viewing the law is that of linking causation with responsibility.

Those who want an unarmed population see firearms as causing harm by the existence of firearms.  They transfer volition from people to inanimate objects. They use Orwellian language to say people are harmed by firearms, instead of with firearms.

This tactic is fundamentally different from lawsuits that claim a defect in a product caused harm.

Where a defective product causes harm, the product did not work as it was designed (and reasonably expected) to.

When a criminal points a gun at a person and pulls the trigger, if the gun fires, the gun is acting as it was designed to. The gun manufacturer has no control over the volition of the person who has possession of the gun at any particular time.

To a person who has chosen to be unarmed, the choice is simple. Get rid of as many guns as possible, in as many ways as possible. To them, this makes sense, because they do not own guns or expect to own guns. They see no cost to them, personally.

The cost to the greater society is enormous, because of the precedent set. A person may be sued; a company bankrupted, an industry destroyed – for producing legal products that functioned as they were designed to function.

Motor car companies could be sued for producing cars used by bank robbers, or mass killers who mow down crowds or use rental trucks as containers for bombs.

Banks could be sued for lending money to companies that produced fertilizer that was used to make bombs, and on and on. It is insanity.  It would mean that anyone who had any assets could eventually be sued for nearly anything that was perceived as a wrong in society.

It is just another aspect of Progressivism, Socialism, Marxism, Collectivism, Liberalism or any other “ism” that has no respect for property rights, individual rights, or the rule of law.

Traditional law and perspective are this:

• Guns do not have volition.
• People are harmed by other people, not by inanimate objects.

The novel legal theory attempted by the Brady Center is this:

• Guns exist.
• People are harmed because guns exist.
• Therefore, the people who made the guns must pay.

Harming some people because a second set of people harmed a third set of people is wrong, and bad law. It is the heart of Progressivism, Socialism, the attempt to re-distribute wealth, envy, covetousness, and the attempt to make gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal actions of others.

It is based on emotion, on the desire that no one should ever be hurt or suffer loss.

It may make sense to have a social safety net that prevents people from suffering catastrophic harm through no fault of their own. It makes no sense to harm others, who were not responsible for the harm caused by a third party.

Democrat candidates Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders have all pledged to work to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, (PLCAA).  I have no intent to slight other Democrat candidates who may have made the same pledge as the list would be too long to include here.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The post Attempted Undermining of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ~ Williams v. Beemiller appeared first on AmmoLand.com.