Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P contends that Ds are each liable for a public nuisance. P asserts that large numbers of handguns are available to criminals, juveniles, and other people prohibited by law from possessing and using them in New York state; that their availability endangers the people of New York and interferes with their use of public space; that Ds negligently and intentionally caused this nuisance although they were on notice (from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and other sources) that this would be the consequence of their imprudent sales and distribution practices throughout the United States; and that Ds negligently and intentionally failed to take practicable marketing steps that would have avoided or alleviated the nuisance by substantially reducing the pool of illegally possessed handguns in New York and in states where handguns were obtained for illegal transport to this state. P contends that the precautions Ds should have taken include: limiting multiple retail sales of guns to the same person; limiting relatively unsupervised sales of their new guns at gun shows; requiring retailers to conduct anti-straw-purchaser training and to take precautions to prevent that common circumvention of the law (a 'straw purchase' being purchase by a person legally entitled to purchase a gun for one obviously not so entitled, such as a felon or youth); cutting off sales of their new guns to retailers that sell a disproportionate number of handguns traced by ATF, usually because of the connection of the guns to criminal activity; requiring retailers to maintain properly stocked, protected, and run establishments; insisting that a retailer not operate under various names to avoid surveillance as an unusual source of traced guns; inspecting retail outlets to see that they are managed appropriately to avoid any overt connection to criminal elements; and taking other inexpensive and effective steps to stop their new guns from being diverted from the legal to the illegal market. P contends that it suffered injury different in kind from that experienced by the community at large as a result of the public nuisance caused by Ds. Ds contend that P has not proved that it or its members have suffered harm from the alleged public nuisance different in kind from whatever harm is experienced by others in New York. The court empaneled an advisory jury.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co