BREAKING NEWS: INDUSTRY COUNTERSUIT!! #2
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for placing those links, Lawdog.
And remember TFLers, the NRA website has all the information you need to contact your congressmen, Senators, Bubba, etc.
We're all online anyway, so...speak your mind. Let them know what we want.
And say "Hi" to FOP an LEAA while you're at it.
Surprised Colt's signed on to this. Are they seeing the light?
And remember TFLers, the NRA website has all the information you need to contact your congressmen, Senators, Bubba, etc.
We're all online anyway, so...speak your mind. Let them know what we want.
And say "Hi" to FOP an LEAA while you're at it.
Surprised Colt's signed on to this. Are they seeing the light?
hksigwalther
New member
Let's Get It On.
- Ron V.
- Ron V.
From the Dow Jones Newswires:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The lawsuit names as defendants New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped draw up the agreement.
Also named were the California communities of San Francisco, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Inglewood, Oakland, and San Mateo; as well as Bridgeport, Conn.; Atlanta; Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Gary, Ind.; Boston; Detroit; St. Louis; Newark, N.J.; Philadelphia; and the District of Columbia.[/quote]
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The lawsuit names as defendants New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped draw up the agreement.
Also named were the California communities of San Francisco, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Inglewood, Oakland, and San Mateo; as well as Bridgeport, Conn.; Atlanta; Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Gary, Ind.; Boston; Detroit; St. Louis; Newark, N.J.; Philadelphia; and the District of Columbia.[/quote]
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
You all ought to see this propagandist garbage cnn has on this matter. Sometimes I long for the Hanging tree justice days....
here's a sample:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Cuomo, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal - named in the lawsuit - led efforts to establish the code last year. The code requires gun makers to make safer weapons and change distribution and marketing procedures to ensure weapons do not get into the wrong hands.
[/quote]
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/04/26/gunlawsuit/index.html
[This message has been edited by scud (edited April 26, 2000).]
here's a sample:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Cuomo, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal - named in the lawsuit - led efforts to establish the code last year. The code requires gun makers to make safer weapons and change distribution and marketing procedures to ensure weapons do not get into the wrong hands.
[/quote]
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/04/26/gunlawsuit/index.html
[This message has been edited by scud (edited April 26, 2000).]
For reasons I won't go in to, money is VERY tight right now, and will be for a while. I'm sending $5.00 from my next paycheck to Colt. I own an M1991 Officers Model, and I'm telling them to put my contribution towards their legal fund. I can't do much, but I can do something.
------------------
When they try to take away my 2nd Amendment rights, tell them Hell's comin' and I'm comin' with it! Armed and Dangerous
------------------
When they try to take away my 2nd Amendment rights, tell them Hell's comin' and I'm comin' with it! Armed and Dangerous
Not a single, solitary word on NBC about this.
Anyone who has FOP and/or LEAA influence, please tell them to set up a legal defense fund to accept contributions. I like the idea of $5/gun.....though, I can't afford to pony up for all my guns at once, so I'd make monthly contributions
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Anyone who has FOP and/or LEAA influence, please tell them to set up a legal defense fund to accept contributions. I like the idea of $5/gun.....though, I can't afford to pony up for all my guns at once, so I'd make monthly contributions
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
FOP and LEAA are not part of this suit. They are, however, on record as opposing the S&W agreement. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Delfay also distributed letters from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the Law Enforcement
Alliance of America (LEAA) rejecting the Administration's plan. "The top concern of any law enforcement agency handling purchasing firearms is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy," stated the FOP. "Law enforcement officers should not be used as political pawns," wrote LEAA.[/quote]If you want to contribute, join the NSSF.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Alliance of America (LEAA) rejecting the Administration's plan. "The top concern of any law enforcement agency handling purchasing firearms is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy," stated the FOP. "Law enforcement officers should not be used as political pawns," wrote LEAA.[/quote]If you want to contribute, join the NSSF.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
BTW, the entire text of the suit is online at NSSF.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited April 26, 2000).]
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited April 26, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Where is Remington, Winchester, Kimber, etc etc?????????[/quote]This suit is specific to companies supplying handguns to LEOs.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Here's the press conference statement:
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
ROBERT T. DELFAY
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
Good afternoon, I'm Bob Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and I'd like to extend my very sincere thanks for joining us. With me this afternoon are executives from seven of the nation's largest police firearms manufacturers: Beretta, USA; Browning Arms; Colt's Manufacturing Co.; Glock, Inc.; Sigarms; Sturm, Ruger & Company; and Taurus International.
We are here today to end an illegal attempt by a number of self-appointed and self-important government officials to violate the basic rights of a legitimate and a responsible industry, and to foist on citizens across this country a nationwide gun control scheme unapproved by congress.
Earlier today, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and these seven police handgun manufacturers filed a lawsuit naming Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of the United States Separtment of Housing and Urban Development; Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, State of New York; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut; and 19 city officials with willful violation of the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit arises from a politically motivated scheme in which these bureaucrats have sought to bully law enforcement professionals into buying handguns based not on the quality or safety of the product, but on capitulation by the manufacturer to a regulatory agenda concocted by these officials.
Defendants Cuomo, Spitzer and others, through their individual and collective actions, are using tactics that some observers have characterized as financial extortion to force lawful, responsible manufacturers into knuckling under to their proposal for national gun control.
In doing so they are clearly trespassing on the Constitution and the role of congress in debating and deciding these important national issues.
In March of this year, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issued a regulation requiring his state's department of law to refuse to purchase police firearms from any manufacturer that did not comply nationally with his extensive wish list of regulations for design and distribution of civilian firearms.
Those demands include overriding many of the 20,000 state and federal laws already governing firearms sale and distribution, and turning over control of those issues, and basic corporate management, to a committee of politicians and lawyers.
Mr. Spitzer then sent a letter to 200 federal, state and city officials nationwide, urging them to join him by adopting the same unconstitutional purchasing schemes. Not because these manufacturers have done anything wrong, certainly not because they have done anything illegal, only because they refused to adopt the Attorney General's version of how to design and market all firearms.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo then applied federal pressure. In late March, that led to 29 more cities and counties adopting a similar illegal program.
In using law enforcement contracts as their vehicle, Secretary Cuomo and the other defendants have placed their personal political agenda before the interests of the men and women who each day rely on firearms to keep us safe.
The campaign of Cuomo, Spitzer and others may make good sound bites, but it does make very bad public policy. It means that law enforcement professionals can no longer select and purchase the best firearm for their particular situation - but only those that have the politically correct stamp of approval by Cuomo, Spitzer and their trial lawyer allies.
As the 65,000-member Law Enforcement Alliance of America stated: "Law enforcement officers should not be used as political pawns." And the 288,000-member Fraternal Order of Police wrote, "The top concern of any law enforcement agency purchasing firearms is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy."
The defendant politicians have repeatedly and publicly stated that these efforts are designed to force concessions in the way manufacturers design and market firearms.
These politicians claim that their actions are necessary to force manufacturers to make safety changes in their products, such as including locking devices with their firearms.
Yet, every single one of the manufacturers represented here already include a locking device with every handgun they sell and some have been doing so for well over a decade.
As we meet here today, firearms accidents are at their lowest level since statistics were first compiled in 1903. This is a result of industry supported safety efforts, not the result of the punitive purchasing schemes.
No one has suggested that these companies are violating the law - only that they have not surrendered to the political designs of a few self-important politicians.
No one has suggested that the quality firearms made by these manufacturers do not continue to serve an important and essential role in protecting our law enforcement officers, our homes and our families-only that they no longer enjoy political correctness in the eyes of the current administration.
And certainly, no one has suggested that these manufacturers have done anything illegal - only that they have had the conviction to stand firm in the face of an illegal barrage by these politicians and their lawyers.
We vigorously object to the suggestion that any manufacturer which does not subscribe to the ill-founded demands of these public officials is not making the safest possible firearms and is not interested in the furtherance of safe and responsible use of its products.
We shall continue to discuss meaningful solutions to accidental and intentional firearms misuse with any individual or organization, including government representatives, who wish to meet with us in good faith.
Our industry is diligently monitored by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the regulatory plan set forth by Congress. We strongly support that agency and efforts to increase its regulatory and investigatory effectiveness.
And finally, make no mistake. No business or enterprise is safe if we allow executive department officials to ignore the elected legislatures and enact their own laws and regulations through litigation. Whatever you think about guns, all Americans should be deeply concerned about this illegal and unconstitutional process.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have in a few minutes, but first i would like to introduce george link, our chief coordinating counsel from the law firm of Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison, to provide a bit more detail on the legal aspects of this lawsuit.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited April 26, 2000).]
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
ROBERT T. DELFAY
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
Good afternoon, I'm Bob Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and I'd like to extend my very sincere thanks for joining us. With me this afternoon are executives from seven of the nation's largest police firearms manufacturers: Beretta, USA; Browning Arms; Colt's Manufacturing Co.; Glock, Inc.; Sigarms; Sturm, Ruger & Company; and Taurus International.
We are here today to end an illegal attempt by a number of self-appointed and self-important government officials to violate the basic rights of a legitimate and a responsible industry, and to foist on citizens across this country a nationwide gun control scheme unapproved by congress.
Earlier today, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and these seven police handgun manufacturers filed a lawsuit naming Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of the United States Separtment of Housing and Urban Development; Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, State of New York; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut; and 19 city officials with willful violation of the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit arises from a politically motivated scheme in which these bureaucrats have sought to bully law enforcement professionals into buying handguns based not on the quality or safety of the product, but on capitulation by the manufacturer to a regulatory agenda concocted by these officials.
Defendants Cuomo, Spitzer and others, through their individual and collective actions, are using tactics that some observers have characterized as financial extortion to force lawful, responsible manufacturers into knuckling under to their proposal for national gun control.
In doing so they are clearly trespassing on the Constitution and the role of congress in debating and deciding these important national issues.
In March of this year, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issued a regulation requiring his state's department of law to refuse to purchase police firearms from any manufacturer that did not comply nationally with his extensive wish list of regulations for design and distribution of civilian firearms.
Those demands include overriding many of the 20,000 state and federal laws already governing firearms sale and distribution, and turning over control of those issues, and basic corporate management, to a committee of politicians and lawyers.
Mr. Spitzer then sent a letter to 200 federal, state and city officials nationwide, urging them to join him by adopting the same unconstitutional purchasing schemes. Not because these manufacturers have done anything wrong, certainly not because they have done anything illegal, only because they refused to adopt the Attorney General's version of how to design and market all firearms.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo then applied federal pressure. In late March, that led to 29 more cities and counties adopting a similar illegal program.
In using law enforcement contracts as their vehicle, Secretary Cuomo and the other defendants have placed their personal political agenda before the interests of the men and women who each day rely on firearms to keep us safe.
The campaign of Cuomo, Spitzer and others may make good sound bites, but it does make very bad public policy. It means that law enforcement professionals can no longer select and purchase the best firearm for their particular situation - but only those that have the politically correct stamp of approval by Cuomo, Spitzer and their trial lawyer allies.
As the 65,000-member Law Enforcement Alliance of America stated: "Law enforcement officers should not be used as political pawns." And the 288,000-member Fraternal Order of Police wrote, "The top concern of any law enforcement agency purchasing firearms is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy."
The defendant politicians have repeatedly and publicly stated that these efforts are designed to force concessions in the way manufacturers design and market firearms.
These politicians claim that their actions are necessary to force manufacturers to make safety changes in their products, such as including locking devices with their firearms.
Yet, every single one of the manufacturers represented here already include a locking device with every handgun they sell and some have been doing so for well over a decade.
As we meet here today, firearms accidents are at their lowest level since statistics were first compiled in 1903. This is a result of industry supported safety efforts, not the result of the punitive purchasing schemes.
No one has suggested that these companies are violating the law - only that they have not surrendered to the political designs of a few self-important politicians.
No one has suggested that the quality firearms made by these manufacturers do not continue to serve an important and essential role in protecting our law enforcement officers, our homes and our families-only that they no longer enjoy political correctness in the eyes of the current administration.
And certainly, no one has suggested that these manufacturers have done anything illegal - only that they have had the conviction to stand firm in the face of an illegal barrage by these politicians and their lawyers.
We vigorously object to the suggestion that any manufacturer which does not subscribe to the ill-founded demands of these public officials is not making the safest possible firearms and is not interested in the furtherance of safe and responsible use of its products.
We shall continue to discuss meaningful solutions to accidental and intentional firearms misuse with any individual or organization, including government representatives, who wish to meet with us in good faith.
Our industry is diligently monitored by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the regulatory plan set forth by Congress. We strongly support that agency and efforts to increase its regulatory and investigatory effectiveness.
And finally, make no mistake. No business or enterprise is safe if we allow executive department officials to ignore the elected legislatures and enact their own laws and regulations through litigation. Whatever you think about guns, all Americans should be deeply concerned about this illegal and unconstitutional process.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have in a few minutes, but first i would like to introduce george link, our chief coordinating counsel from the law firm of Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison, to provide a bit more detail on the legal aspects of this lawsuit.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited April 26, 2000).]
Gorthaur:
Re the comment in your post about NY State Attorney General, Mr. Spitzer ordering state agencies to purchase firearms on the basis of what some describe as "bowing down to blackmail", it was my impression that such purchases, generally required COMPETITIVE BIDS, as a matter of law.
Now there might be ways around the competitive bid requirement, but if it is there, it could prove quite a obstacle, or so it seems.
In any event, the idea of this type of suit does sound interesting, to say the very least. I have seen/heard no mention whatever of it on either radio or television newscasts.
[This message has been edited by alan (edited April 27, 2000).]
Re the comment in your post about NY State Attorney General, Mr. Spitzer ordering state agencies to purchase firearms on the basis of what some describe as "bowing down to blackmail", it was my impression that such purchases, generally required COMPETITIVE BIDS, as a matter of law.
Now there might be ways around the competitive bid requirement, but if it is there, it could prove quite a obstacle, or so it seems.
In any event, the idea of this type of suit does sound interesting, to say the very least. I have seen/heard no mention whatever of it on either radio or television newscasts.
[This message has been edited by alan (edited April 27, 2000).]
Why hasn't the AG of Mass been named? Any ideas. This man picked some "arbitrary" features necessary to sell a gun in the state and left one conspicuous manufacturer able to sell guns in the state.
Clinton decided that SUVs had to conform to the same emmission standards as cars, and gave them 5 full years to change designs and production, but the Mass AG makes his decree immediate thus sending hundreds of FFLs out of business and halting the sale of many manufacturers' guns in that state.
I sent them an e-mail of praise, and asked them this question as well.
Clinton decided that SUVs had to conform to the same emmission standards as cars, and gave them 5 full years to change designs and production, but the Mass AG makes his decree immediate thus sending hundreds of FFLs out of business and halting the sale of many manufacturers' guns in that state.
I sent them an e-mail of praise, and asked them this question as well.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why hasn't the AG of Mass been named? Any ideas.[/quote]I don't know the specifics of the recent decree in Mass., but this lawsuit is only about sales to law enforcement agencies.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Mikul et al,
This suit is just to stop the S&W agreement. That is why Kimber and some of the other makers are not involved. The AG of MA is not part of the suit for that reason.
We still need to back Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her group's suit that will be coming out soon against the municipalities who are suing firearms manufactures!!!
Please go to http://www.libertydefense.com and support their counter lawsuit against those cities who are suing gun manufacturers. Your donation is tax deductible.
"A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than
any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything.
A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it." ...Shane...
Details:
CLDF is currently raising the funds and laying the legal groundwork for a lawsuit to protect your 2nd Amendment rights.
In 1999, 76 Texas state representatives and many senators fought for and succeeded in passing S.B. 717, which now prohibits Texas cities from filing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, retailers, and ammunition producers.
Despite the efforts of Texas legislators, 28 U.S. cities have filed lawsuits against the gun manufacturers and many retailers in an effort to achieve gun control through the courts and ultimately bankrupt the gun industry.
The lawsuits have already had an adverse effect on the gun manufacturers. Colt has announced that because of the lawsuits they will no longer sell certain handguns to the public. In addition, several manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy protection, with more expected to do so in the near future. Most recently, Smith & Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration that bypasses the legislative process and imposes gun control on Smith & Wesson and the gun stores that buy from them.
The events that have transpired as a direct result of the lawsuits against the gun industry threaten, and may irrevocably damage, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
In light of this precarious situation, many of the original sponsors of S.B. 717 have concluded that legal action can and should be taken to protect our rights. As such, a lawsuit will be filed on their behalf, and for the benefit of all Americans, against all 28 cities that have conspired to deprive us of our 2nd Amendment rights.
In addition, several Texas gun stores have expressed an interest in becoming plaintiffs in the lawsuit and will be suing under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, §8, cl.3), which forbids state and local governments from enacting laws or policies that place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Based on the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held unconstitutional state and local laws that seek to regulate business in other states and will certainly frown upon the current attempts.
Joe
------------------
Joe's Self Reliance & Preparedness Forum
This suit is just to stop the S&W agreement. That is why Kimber and some of the other makers are not involved. The AG of MA is not part of the suit for that reason.
We still need to back Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her group's suit that will be coming out soon against the municipalities who are suing firearms manufactures!!!
Please go to http://www.libertydefense.com and support their counter lawsuit against those cities who are suing gun manufacturers. Your donation is tax deductible.
"A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than
any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything.
A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it." ...Shane...
Details:
CLDF is currently raising the funds and laying the legal groundwork for a lawsuit to protect your 2nd Amendment rights.
In 1999, 76 Texas state representatives and many senators fought for and succeeded in passing S.B. 717, which now prohibits Texas cities from filing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, retailers, and ammunition producers.
Despite the efforts of Texas legislators, 28 U.S. cities have filed lawsuits against the gun manufacturers and many retailers in an effort to achieve gun control through the courts and ultimately bankrupt the gun industry.
The lawsuits have already had an adverse effect on the gun manufacturers. Colt has announced that because of the lawsuits they will no longer sell certain handguns to the public. In addition, several manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy protection, with more expected to do so in the near future. Most recently, Smith & Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration that bypasses the legislative process and imposes gun control on Smith & Wesson and the gun stores that buy from them.
The events that have transpired as a direct result of the lawsuits against the gun industry threaten, and may irrevocably damage, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
In light of this precarious situation, many of the original sponsors of S.B. 717 have concluded that legal action can and should be taken to protect our rights. As such, a lawsuit will be filed on their behalf, and for the benefit of all Americans, against all 28 cities that have conspired to deprive us of our 2nd Amendment rights.
In addition, several Texas gun stores have expressed an interest in becoming plaintiffs in the lawsuit and will be suing under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, §8, cl.3), which forbids state and local governments from enacting laws or policies that place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Based on the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held unconstitutional state and local laws that seek to regulate business in other states and will certainly frown upon the current attempts.
Joe
------------------
Joe's Self Reliance & Preparedness Forum
FOX News Channel said that the manufacturers
"Say it is illegal to use such methods to make them produce safer guns."
I was under the impression that the manufacturers did not agree that "smart guns" and the like WERE safer guns, so why would they say such a thing--oh, that's right, it fit better in FOX's story.
"Say it is illegal to use such methods to make them produce safer guns."
I was under the impression that the manufacturers did not agree that "smart guns" and the like WERE safer guns, so why would they say such a thing--oh, that's right, it fit better in FOX's story.
Donations on the way. CLDF seems to have a good plan.
I'm still E-mailing and faxing our revered rulers, telling them that large numbers of their constituants do not want gun control.
Also sending words of support to the manufactures. It looks like I might have to pick up some Berettas and Brownings.
With the Counter-suit against HUD and CLDF's volley, we might be able to make a differance. CLDF's web page is set up to take donations via credit card, quick and easy. Littigation is expensive.
Fall in!
I'm still E-mailing and faxing our revered rulers, telling them that large numbers of their constituants do not want gun control.
Also sending words of support to the manufactures. It looks like I might have to pick up some Berettas and Brownings.
With the Counter-suit against HUD and CLDF's volley, we might be able to make a differance. CLDF's web page is set up to take donations via credit card, quick and easy. Littigation is expensive.
Fall in!
Check out the front page of USA Today...
Joe
Second Amendment Activist's Forum
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited April 27, 2000).]
Joe
Second Amendment Activist's Forum
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited April 27, 2000).]
- Status