Indiana Supreme Court says Gary gun lawsuit can proceed

12-26-2003, 05:49 PM

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...0500703e49.txt

Oxford · 12-26-2003, 08:40 PM

They're wasting their time. Similar lawsuits have been thrown out of other courts, and this legal action should be rejected, too. Some gun opponents just never get the idea that manufacturer's and gun owners are not to blame for a few individual's actions who choose to break laws. Those perps could be using knives, clubs, guns or anything that they think will force their unlawful actions upon their victims.

Ox

:nod:

Dale · 12-27-2003, 11:05 AM

The court in Indiana might be (unknowingly ?) playing it slick by allowing the suit in knowing it'll be ruled on and then set aside.

If they reject the law suit it can be entered time and time again until it does get to a bench or dismissed. A rejection isn't a dismissal without prejudice.

01-01-2004, 05:16 PM

Court ruling will not end gun debate
By MIKE SMITH
Associated Press Writer

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - In 32 pages, the Indiana Supreme Court weighed in on a legal dispute over guns that is being waged in similar fashion in several jurisdictions across the country.

That Indiana's justices allowed the city of Gary to proceed with its lawsuit against the gun industry was hailed as a victory by the city and gun-control advocates, and dismissed by the gun business as a minor setback.

Both sides acknowledge that the biggest fight going on now is before the U.S. Congress. A bill passed by the House and now before the Senate would immunize the industry from such lawsuits.

That may or may not pass, and even if it passes, it is sure to be challenged in federal courts, and that judicial review could take years to shake out.

So it is worth reviewing the ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court - what it says and does not say.

In the lawsuit, Gary officials allege that gun manufacturers typically sell to distributors who resell at wholesale to dealers who in turn sell at retail to the general public. The dealers are accused of selling guns to those who by law should not be able to buy them.

The manufacturers are alleged to know of these illegal sales and intentionally doing nothing to prevent them. The complaint says these practices amount to a public nuisance that has fueled crime, causing physical harm and draining the city of resources.
A trial court judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the state's high court says a claim was stated and the city was a proper party to file suit.

''It remains for trial whether the city can establish the facts it alleges,'' the ruling said.

The court points out that Indiana nuisance law is grounded in an 1881 statute. It says, ''Whatever is 1) injurious to health; 2) indecent; 3) offensive to the senses; or 4) an obstruction to the free use of property, so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance, and the subject of action.''

The defendants point out that at the time a gun is used in a crime, it is no longer in the control of any defendant.

''In some cases the fault allocated to the user may overwhelm or even eliminate fault of the seller,'' the ruling said. But, the justices said, the city deserves its day in court.

''Here we have bald allegations of liability and a claim of resulting damages,'' the ruling says. ''That is sufficient to state a claim. Whether the claim can be substantiated is an issue for another day.''

The court goes on to say that proof of damages from any specific use of an unlawfully sold weapon ''may turn out to be so inextricably intertwined with other factors that as a matter of law the city may have difficulty in establishing a claim for money damages.''

But even if that is so, the justices said, the city has stated a claim for injunctive relief. Stated simply, the city wants to court to order the industry to stop distributing guns through dealers it alleges are supplying criminals.

Allowing the suit to proceed is still far from victory for the city of Gary. But the decision could help fuel U.S. Senate debate next month over legislation that would immunize the gun industry from being sued for crimes committed with their products.

The bill has passed the House and has 55 proclaimed backers in the Senate. But some Democrats have promised a filibuster that could prevent the bill from passing.

Regardless, the debate seems far from over.

dhermesc · 01-02-2004, 08:35 AM

Couldn't the city be sued by residents for knowly allowing all these criminal sales to occur? If the city of Gary can prove illegal sales are taking place why don't they arrest the people making the sales and the people doing the buying?

Sniper[MI] · 01-02-2004, 09:05 AM

It is time to really push for tort laws and change the law so judges have term limits and can be VOTED in or OUT of office. Screw the antis and screw the courts that allow these cases to court and screw (Big time with a roto tiller) the lawyers that take these cases for these suits!

PAPA G · 01-02-2004, 09:23 AM

ya don't suppose the NRA is in the hole, from fighting these lawsuits??? maybe its part of the Dem/Lib agenda to break the NRA.

01-02-2004, 05:59 PM

no maybe about it Papa G

01-02-2004, 06:25 PM

Gary has the highest murder rate, per capita, in the nation. I think we should given them more guns instead of less. Maybe they'll all blow each other away. Gary is the Butthole of the Midwest.

12-26-2003, 05:49 PM	#1
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	Indiana Supreme Court says Gary gun lawsuit can proceed http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...0500703e49.txt

12-26-2003, 08:40 PM	#2
Oxford Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Gladstone, Missouri Posts: 14,098 Images: 18 Blog Entries: 4	They're wasting their time. Similar lawsuits have been thrown out of other courts, and this legal action should be rejected, too. Some gun opponents just never get the idea that manufacturer's and gun owners are not to blame for a few individual's actions who choose to break laws. Those perps could be using knives, clubs, guns or anything that they think will force their unlawful actions upon their victims. Ox :nod: __________________ "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right".

12-27-2003, 11:05 AM	#3
Dale Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Too Dang Hot, Arizona Posts: 4,288	The court in Indiana might be (unknowingly ?) playing it slick by allowing the suit in knowing it'll be ruled on and then set aside. If they reject the law suit it can be entered time and time again until it does get to a bench or dismissed. A rejection isn't a dismissal without prejudice. __________________ "It confuses me how some people can vigorously go against the 2nd. Amendment and still call themselves patriotic"-me

01-01-2004, 05:16 PM	#4
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	Court ruling will not end gun debate By MIKE SMITH Associated Press Writer INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - In 32 pages, the Indiana Supreme Court weighed in on a legal dispute over guns that is being waged in similar fashion in several jurisdictions across the country. That Indiana's justices allowed the city of Gary to proceed with its lawsuit against the gun industry was hailed as a victory by the city and gun-control advocates, and dismissed by the gun business as a minor setback. Both sides acknowledge that the biggest fight going on now is before the U.S. Congress. A bill passed by the House and now before the Senate would immunize the industry from such lawsuits. That may or may not pass, and even if it passes, it is sure to be challenged in federal courts, and that judicial review could take years to shake out. So it is worth reviewing the ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court - what it says and does not say. In the lawsuit, Gary officials allege that gun manufacturers typically sell to distributors who resell at wholesale to dealers who in turn sell at retail to the general public. The dealers are accused of selling guns to those who by law should not be able to buy them. The manufacturers are alleged to know of these illegal sales and intentionally doing nothing to prevent them. The complaint says these practices amount to a public nuisance that has fueled crime, causing physical harm and draining the city of resources. A trial court judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the state's high court says a claim was stated and the city was a proper party to file suit. ''It remains for trial whether the city can establish the facts it alleges,'' the ruling said. The court points out that Indiana nuisance law is grounded in an 1881 statute. It says, ''Whatever is 1) injurious to health; 2) indecent; 3) offensive to the senses; or 4) an obstruction to the free use of property, so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance, and the subject of action.'' The defendants point out that at the time a gun is used in a crime, it is no longer in the control of any defendant. ''In some cases the fault allocated to the user may overwhelm or even eliminate fault of the seller,'' the ruling said. But, the justices said, the city deserves its day in court. ''Here we have bald allegations of liability and a claim of resulting damages,'' the ruling says. ''That is sufficient to state a claim. Whether the claim can be substantiated is an issue for another day.'' The court goes on to say that proof of damages from any specific use of an unlawfully sold weapon ''may turn out to be so inextricably intertwined with other factors that as a matter of law the city may have difficulty in establishing a claim for money damages.'' But even if that is so, the justices said, the city has stated a claim for injunctive relief. Stated simply, the city wants to court to order the industry to stop distributing guns through dealers it alleges are supplying criminals. Allowing the suit to proceed is still far from victory for the city of Gary. But the decision could help fuel U.S. Senate debate next month over legislation that would immunize the gun industry from being sued for crimes committed with their products. The bill has passed the House and has 55 proclaimed backers in the Senate. But some Democrats have promised a filibuster that could prevent the bill from passing. Regardless, the debate seems far from over. Last edited by Logansdad; 01-01-2004 at 05:19 PM.

01-02-2004, 08:35 AM	#5
dhermesc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: East Central Kansas Posts: 2,136	Couldn't the city be sued by residents for knowly allowing all these criminal sales to occur? If the city of Gary can prove illegal sales are taking place why don't they arrest the people making the sales and the people doing the buying? __________________ Liberty is for those that claim it.

01-02-2004, 09:05 AM	#6
Sniper[MI] Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Future 51st state, "New Hope" Posts: 3,795	Screw em all! It is time to really push for tort laws and change the law so judges have term limits and can be VOTED in or OUT of office. Screw the antis and screw the courts that allow these cases to court and screw (Big time with a roto tiller) the lawyers that take these cases for these suits! __________________ FNUH!

01-02-2004, 09:23 AM	#7
PAPA G Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 9,104	ya don't suppose the NRA is in the hole, from fighting these lawsuits??? maybe its part of the Dem/Lib agenda to break the NRA.

01-02-2004, 05:59 PM	#8
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	no maybe about it Papa G

01-02-2004, 06:25 PM	#9
Lenny2 Guest Posts: n/a	Gary has the highest murder rate, per capita, in the nation. I think we should given them more guns instead of less. Maybe they'll all blow each other away. Gary is the Butthole of the Midwest.