Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
american lawyer media news service Gun dealers and manufacturers earned a major victory last week when a federal advisory jury refused to hold them liable for the trade in illegal guns that are used in violent crimes against urban blacks. Eastern District of New York Senior Judge Jack B. Weinstein is now expected to issue a ruling within 30 days that lawyers for both sides expect will embrace the jury’s verdict. The panel of 12 jurors issued a finding of no liability for 45 of the defendants and was unable to reach a verdict for the remaining 23 manufacturers or gun dealers-an indication, plaintiff’s lawyer Elisa Barnes said, that a minimum of two jurors voted for liability. Rarely used, an advisory jury does not render a legally binding verdict, but is used by a judge to help render a decision. “This is a case that should have been dismissed,” said James P. Dorr of Chicago-based Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, one of about 20 firms that represented the dealers and gun makers. Defeat for ‘zealots’? “This is a complete defeat for the anti-gun zealots,” said Lawrence G. Keane, vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The plaintiffs, led by Barnes, an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), had sought to prove that the negligence or willful ignorance of the gun industry resulted in a flood of illegal weapons on the streets of U.S. cities, where a disproportionate number of young blacks die from gun violence every year. The plaintiffs’ goal was an injunction that would impose several restrictions on the industry, including a provision that would stop sales to uninsured dealers at gun shows and limit the number of guns a person can purchase to one per month. Barnes had successfully prosecuted a similar case in 1999 before Weinstein in which one of the lead plaintiffs was a young man who had been shot in the head with an illegal gun during a street crime. But that suit, Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), was ultimately dismissed by the New York Court of Appeals, which, after receiving the case on certification from the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed the verdict.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.