Now that we have, probably, as much information as we are going to find for awhile, let’s take a look at what Bloomberg really has and doesn’t have.

The first thing the defense(s) will probably file is a request for dismissal based upon protections afforded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Then NYC will show why the suits should not be dismissed.

Getting around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act builds only one part of New York City’s case, but is required to just get into court. Without proving the applicability of at least one exception, federal law protects the stores. The exceptions are (from Thomas):

1. brought by a directly harmed party against a person who transfers a firearm knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime;
2. brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
3. in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
4. for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the firearm;
5. for death, physical injuries, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the firearm when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries, or property damage; or
6. commenced by the Attorney General to enforce firearms provisions under the federal criminal code or the Internal Revenue Code. Permits a person under age 17 to recover damages authorized under federal or state law in a civil action that meets specified requirements.

Taking these exceptions in order:

1. NYC could claim to be a directly harmed party as a result of uninsured hospital bills, injured / killed police officers, etc. This argument is not applicable to the single firearm purchased as it was never used in a NYC crime.
2. NYC will claim that, by definition, allowing a straw purchase passes possession of a firearm to a probable prohibited person. In the case of the single firearm, the PI was probably not a prohibited person decreasing the impact of this argument.
3. NYC could claim that the seller knowingly violated federal law by allowing the straw purchase and should have expected the product to inflict harm.
4. There was no breach of contract or warranty on the part of the seller.
5. This exemption is not applicable to sellers, only manufacturers.
6. The Attorney General specified is the AG of the US, not NYC. This exception does not apply.

Proving an exception does not win NYC their case; it only gets them into court. 

The problem New York City then faces is that all of these exceptions are related to a single firearm. That firearm was the one allegedly straw purchased by a private investigator. Obviously that firearm moved from the store to the possession of NYC with no harm to New York City in the process. Damages on this single firearm would be zero.

Since this is really about money, New York City needs to maximize damage inflicted by the store. It must find a way to connect the single firearm to the discredited, outdated gun trace data they already have to show a pattern of behavior on the part of the store that results in harm to the city.

Update: Of Arms and the Law has additions thoughts at Take on Bloomburg's gun suits.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!