BREAKING NEWS: INDUSTRY COUNTERSUIT!! #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heres the link to the USA Today on-line story...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncswed09.htm


A snip:

''We are demanding cities stop the effort of using their purchasing power to control the distribution and design of firearms,'' said Jeff Reh, general counsel for Beretta U.S.A. Corp, one of the seven suing companies.

Reh said the mayors were attempting to expand their authority beyond their cities. HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo called the lawsuit ''frivolous'' and said it was ''a vain attempt to distract from their (gun makers') failure to take responsibility for there share of the tragic problem of gun violence.''

Comment on the lawsuit from Capitol Hill was swift and partisan.

''I am disappointed that some gun manufacturers have chosen confrontation over cooperation,'' said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. ''The federal government isn't asking for much, only that these companies help adopt common sense measures to keep guns from ending up in the wrong hands.''

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he thinks the Clinton administration overstepped its authority.

''From the allegations of the complaint filed today ... it now appears the administration seeks to further its goals by circumventing the will of Congress and illegitimately bringing the weight of the executive branch to bear on law-biding firearm manufacturers,'' Hatch said.


[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited April 27, 2000).]
 
CHOSEN competition?

These idiots would be disappointed if I refused to let them perform a cavity search at the city limits.

"Just because we chose to confront you with the threat of bankruptcy, doesn't mean you should choose confrontation over cooperation!"
 
Shin-Tao,

Thanks for donating to the CLDF! You set a fine example for us all. In fact, I just sent them a donation as well. Everyone should send them the amount of money that it would take to get a one year NRA membership for someone or 5 dollars per gun that they own, whichever they prefer. :)

Joe


Second Amendment Activist's Forum
 
So, Lautenberg actually said that '... some gun manufacturers have chosen confrontation over cooperation ...'? Wow. What an incredible, lying pig this man must be. Who does he think started this fight? (I know, I know ... this bozo has a long history re: his work to destroy the RKBA.)

I must have a very deep vein of naivete running through me, because these ass***es can still surprise me with their incredible statements.

Well, the attorney's have to be loving all of this activity. And, if you've never seen it, take a look at www.firearmslitigation.org - a real eye-opener.

Regards from AZ
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>''From the allegations of the complaint filed today ... it now appears the administration seeks to further its goals by circumventing the will of Congress and illegitimately bringing the weight of the executive branch to bear on law-biding firearm manufacturers,'' Hatch said.
[/quote]

Oh, so HATCH finally gets it after 7 years of abuses!

What a maroon! :mad:

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Listen to this bullcrap!!!

"New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer, who has helped lead the push for a code of conduct in his state and is named in the suit, said that the manufacturers might not know what they're getting themselves into.

"We will see how unified they remain when their legal bills mount," he said. "They are going to be met with a litigation counter-assault the likes of which they have never seen.""

Joe
 
I am happy to say that, as far as I see, there seems to be a buzz of excitement and optimism across the industry.

There is a sense of consensus and "fraternity" across these manufacturers, the NSSF and the LE community. I just spoke to a recently retired FBI high-ranking officer who told me that he has received a lot of positive feedback from FBI folks about this countersuit!

Who knows, maybe we are REALLY learning to stick together and fight back!

========
Deo Vindice!


[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited April 27, 2000).]
 
The gauntlet has officially been thrown down and the enemy is making threats. Yes, littigation is expensive, and polititians have soft spines. So be it. It's up to us then to keep donating and voicing our will to the people in office.
I believe this particular battle will make or break RKBA in the United States. I assign grave importance to what is unfolding. Keep participating and watch your six.
The internet is a valuable resource. Use it while it is still effective. If we don't put forth max effort now, our voices will no longer matter. It will be too late.
Our country could look like Northern Ireland if we don't win.
 
I love to see all these "we's" in these posts. You are all right to say that "we" are in the fight along with these manufacturers and we've all got to stick together, especially with this lawsuit. I will be making my donation next week and sending my thanks this week.
 
It looks like the NY Times has one of the more balanced reports. I thought they were pretty strongly anti?

------

April 27, 2000

Gun Makers Sue Governments on Buying Rules

WASHINGTON, April 26 -- Seven of the nation's largest gun manufacturers filed suit today to keep New York State, Connecticut and 16 local governments from adopting purchasing policies favoring gun companies that agree to stringent rules governing the ways they make, sell and distribute weapons.

Robert T. Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that helped organize the lawsuit, said in a news conference: "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."

At its heart, the suit seeks to prohibit purchasing policies intended to pressure gun companies into adopting a sweeping "code of conduct" promoted by Housing Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo and the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

Among other things, the code requires companies to install locks on handguns, develop "smart-gun" technology allowing only authorized users to fire a weapon and place hidden serial numbers inside guns. It also requires dealers to accept a host of restrictions, including selling weapons only to people who have passed gun safety courses.

To date, only one company, Smith & Wesson, the nation's oldest and largest handgun maker, has accepted the code. In exchange, 29 cities agreed to drop lawsuits against Smith & Wesson seeking monetary damages for gun violence. But since agreeing to the code on March 17, Smith & Wesson, a unit of Tomkins PLC of London, has tried to back away from major elements of it.

Mr. Cuomo's office had been in negotiations with other gun makers, including some involved in today's suit, to encourage them to agree to the code, also in exchange for having municipal lawsuits against them dropped. But today's announcement seemed to signal that those talks are all but dead.

"There's no chance in the world we'll sign the deal," said Paul Januzzo, vice president for Glock Inc., one of the plaintiffs in today's suit. Glock, which just weeks ago seemed close to accepting the agreement, is the largest seller of firearms to law enforcement agencies in the country.

The effort to encourage law enforcement agencies to buy guns selectively from companies that accept the code was first promoted by New York's attorney general, Eliot L. Spitzer, out of concern that using Congress, state legislatures or the courts to win gun-control measures was taking too long.

In the last month, officials in more than 70 cities have said they would adopt the procurement policy. Mr. Cuomo is developing similar regulations for public housing authorities, and Mr. Spitzer has ordered his department to adopt the policy.

The gun makers' suit, filed in federal district court in Atlanta, asserts that such selective purchasing policies are an illegal effort to regulate interstate commerce because they would restrict the ways gun companies do business across the nation. Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, only the federal government, not cities or states, are allowed to regulate commerce across state lines.

The suit names as defendants Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Spitzer, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and officials from 14 cities, including San Francisco, Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Newark and St. Louis.

In addition to Glock, the gun companies that filed the suit include some of the best-known names in the industry: Colt's Manufacturing; Beretta U.S.A., a unit of Beretta Holding S.P.A. in Italy; Browning Arms Inc., a unit of FN Herstal of Belgium; Sig Arms Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company; and Taurus International Manufacturing. Together, they account for about 80 percent of the handguns sold to law enforcement agencies in the country.

Mr. Delfay said he could not cite any evidence that those companies had been hurt by the procurement policies, mainly because they had just been instituted. Most of the cities named in the suit have only pledged to adopt the policy, but have yet to draw up regulations.

In a statement, Mr. Cuomo called the suit a frivolous effort by the manufacturers "to distract from their failure to take responsibility for their share of the tragic problem of gun violence."

Mr. Blumenthal said in an interview that the courts had repeatedly upheld the right of cities and states to band together to make public policy. "Governments have to be free, indeed they have an obligation, to use their purchasing powers, as well as other powers, to serve the public interest," he said.




------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
The National Shooting Sports Foundation • 11 Mile Hill Road • Newtown, CT
06470-2359

Tel: (203) 426-1320 • Fax: (203) 426-1087

SPECIAL TO: ALL MEDIA
For Immediate Release

Wednesday, April 26, 2000

Contact: Bob Delfay or Doug
Painter
(203) 426-1320


Industry Group and Seven Police
Firearms Manufacturers Sue
Government Officials--Conspiracy
Alleged


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation and seven
police firearms companies today filed suit in federal court against Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Andrew Cuomo, New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and
mayors and other officials of 14 municipalities, charging them with an illegal
conspiracy in restraint of trade and in violation of the Commerce Clause 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,"
Robert Delfay, President of the NSSF, stated. "We are here to expose a plan
that brazenly places political self-interest above police and citizen safety."

"These local officials have tried everything from litigation to economic extortion
to compel compliance on a national level with their own individual ideas about
gun design, ownership and distribution," Delfay said. "That is wrong by any
measure of law, ethics or fairness. Our democratic process is being perverted,
the power vested in our elected leaders is being ignored and the Constitution is
being trampled upon by HUD Secretary Cuomo and other defendants who have
formed an improper alliance with a band of lawyers to sue us into submission."

The suit by NSSF and the firearms manufacturers asks a federal court in
Atlanta, site of many of the actions undertaken in furtherance of the
conspiracy, to:

… Acknowledge that Secretary Cuomo's efforts and that of other defendants to
impose rules and regulations regarding the design and distribution of firearms
exceed the limits of authority granted to their offices by Congress and by the
U.S. Constitution;

… Prevent Cuomo and other defendants from further steps that violate the
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986;

… Find that the preferential purchase scheme imposed by the defendants
violates the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution; and

… Prevent state and local officials from taking actions that restrict interstate
trade or foreign commerce.

"An anti-gun agenda does not excuse anti-democratic behavior," Delfay stated.
"The people of the United States have placed the authority to regulate firearm
design and distribution in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of a small
contingent of self-chosen politicians and their attorneys."

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.

"This is not about locks on guns or even gun safety. This is about Eliot Spitzer
telling a homeowner in Iowa what gun he or she can buy, from whom and how,"
Delfay said.

NSSF is the voice of the firearms industry with over 1,800 members who are
involved in all aspects of the shooting sports. The firearms companies involved
in the suits are Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Browning Arms, Inc., Colt's
Manufacturing, Inc., Glock, Inc., SIG Arms, Inc., Sturm, Ruger & Company,
Inc., and Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.

-30-
 
So:
I went out and bought a Beretta, joined LEAA, sent SFA a check, ordered a couple of cases of ammo, and shined my ass-kickin' boots.

Blew all my beer/gun/ammo money for the next couple of months, but Ifeelgood!
M2
 
Can we get congress to stop using tax money to subvert the Constitution?
Serious question. Aren't they all sworn to uphold and defend etc.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
So, has anyone heard anything lately about the SAF's lawsuit? You know, the one suing because of the violation of OUR rights, under the SECOND amendment, not the firearms industry's rights under the commerce clause?

Not that I think this lawsuit by the firearms industry is a bad idea; It's just that, don't civil rights laws allow you to get past the "sovereign immunity" defense when you allege a conspiracy to violate civil rights, which is what the SAF, but not the firearms companies, are alleging?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Some one posted in Part One:
"Yeah baby, now we're talking. Fight fire with fire."

No, Sir. Not quite.

You fight fire with Movement, Shock Effect and Overwelming Fire Power.
:D
Lets take them down!

5 bucks per gun?
Gulp... cinching belt, rolling up sleaves... This will done in a few hours from now.
 
My RKBA master budget was recently attacked by a virus - the IRS 1040 - perhaps you've heard of it. As a result, I was unable to join with you all in support of this cause until today.

I hereby pledge to CLDF a donation of $5.00 per handgun owned. The first installment on my pledge, covering 10 handguns, will be made today.

This is one 'tax' I am proud to pay.

Believe in the inevitability of the final victory.

------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...

Vote for the Neal Knox 13

I'll see you at the TFL End Of Summer Meet!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top