TexasCHLforum.com

Tossed out NYC lawsuit against "Gun Industry".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 029D12.DTL

This is very good news indeed. I'm sure it was physically painful for U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein to accept this; he's rabidly anti-gun and a judicial activist in the worst fashion. In my view, he's so bad he should be impeached.

I noted that Bloomberg claims he'll be back in the courts. Some federal judge need to hit NYC with a few million dollars in attorney fees and other sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, then a $25,000 fine each day it's not paid. That's the only thing that going to stop this I'm-above-the-law demagog. In case you haven't noticed, I despise Bloomberg.

/rant

Chas.

Me too. & I have never met him. Coarse dont want to either.

I don't care for his television network either.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I noted that Bloomberg claims he'll be back in the courts. Some federal judge need to hit NYC with a few million dollars in attorney fees and other sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, then a $25,000 fine each day it's not paid.

As much as I dislike him, you're not going to affect any change in his behavior by charging his office. He'll just pay the cost out of the budget of something useful to New Yorkers and go on doing exactly what he's doing. Now, charge HIM as the person with the court costs and I guarantee you he'll take notice, but I doubt you can do that since he's "acting in his official capacity as Mayor" and thus protected by his office unless he commits misfeasance or malfeasance in office (failing to perform his duties adequately and properly, or intentionally and measureably harming his office). Both are difficult to prove unless you can prove corruption or blatant incompetence.

Liko81 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I noted that Bloomberg claims he'll be back in the courts. Some federal judge need to hit NYC with a few million dollars in attorney fees and other sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, then a $25,000 fine each day it's not paid.

As much as I dislike him, you're not going to affect any change in his behavior by charging his office. He'll just pay the cost out of the budget of something useful to New Yorkers and go on doing exactly what he's doing. Now, charge HIM as the person with the court costs and I guarantee you he'll take notice, but I doubt you can do that since he's "acting in his official capacity as Mayor" and thus protected by his office unless he commits misfeasance or malfeasance in office (failing to perform his duties adequately and properly, or intentionally and measureably harming his office). Both are difficult to prove unless you can prove corruption or blatant incompetence.

I respectfully disagree. Tag NYC with several million dollars in sanctions and he'll either change his conduct, get voted out of office, or stay and waste New Yorkers' money. Any of the three are better than the status quo.

As for making him pay the sanctions, you're correct, that can't happen.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In case you haven't noticed, I despise Bloomberg.



Chas.

Where would we get an idea like that?

This is great news, though not entirely unexpected. Weinstein's tortured interpretation of the law was begging to be struck down, and so it was. The legal precedents all seem to be running our way for the PLCF Act. A similar case in DC was thrown out a week or two ago as I recall.

But I'm sure the gun banners are looking for other legal avenues to pursue. Their campaign to gain access to BATFE forward trace data is their current priority. What gets me is the way they lie about this effort by characterizing it as enabling law enforcement to gain access to the data. They conveniently fail to mention that forward traces are done at the behest of law enforcement. That's the whole purpose of a forward trace - to aid in solving a crime and/or prosecuting an illegal sale or transfer.

It's not LE that can't get this data - its trial lawyers who want to engage in "data mining" in an effort to develop grounds to sue manufacturers and dealers - grounds that they hope would survive the PLCF Act prohibitions.

But that's not what you hear from Bloomberg and his lying lawyer pals in the gun ban lobby.

Venus Pax wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In case you haven't noticed, I despise Bloomberg.



Chas.

Where would we get an idea like that?

I rate him right up there with fat teddy and nancy pelosi. Worthless windbags in my opinion. Why is it that term limits are good enough for the president, but not these bottom feeders?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I noted that Bloomberg claims he'll be back in the courts. Some federal judge need to hit NYC with a few million dollars in attorney fees and other sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, then a $25,000 fine each day it's not paid.

As much as I dislike him, you're not going to affect any change in his behavior by charging his office. He'll just pay the cost out of the budget of something useful to New Yorkers and go on doing exactly what he's doing. Now, charge HIM as the person with the court costs and I guarantee you he'll take notice, but I doubt you can do that since he's "acting in his official capacity as Mayor" and thus protected by his office unless he commits misfeasance or malfeasance in office (failing to perform his duties adequately and properly, or intentionally and measureably harming his office). Both are difficult to prove unless you can prove corruption or blatant incompetence.

I respectfully disagree. Tag NYC with several million dollars in sanctions and he'll either change his conduct, get voted out of office, or stay and waste New Yorkers' money. Any of the three are better than the status quo.

As for making him pay the sanctions, you're correct, that can't happen.

Chas.

I'm with Charles here, except that I think that by extension of bloomy's own logic, he's intentionally and measureably harming his office and the city if he causes the fines to be assessed.

I don't think I'll ever understand why people who are so smart and have access to all sorts of information, studies, etc. continue to believe that gun control is an effective measure against crime, DESPITE the mounds of evidence from journals, studies, the CDC and DOJ, arguing the contrary. I would be more apt to at least respect their views if there wasn't so much empirical evidence, but personally I feel it's as delusional as those holocaust deniers, and just as shameful.

jimlongley wrote:I'm with Charles here, except that I think that by extension of bloomy's own logic, he's intentionally and measureably harming his office and the city if he causes the fines to be assessed.

That's kinda what I was thinking. assess the fines against the city, then charge him as bringing harm against the city.

DoubleJ wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I'm with Charles here, except that I think that by extension of bloomy's own logic, he's intentionally and measureably harming his office and the city if he causes the fines to be assessed.

That's kinda what I was thinking. assess the fines against the city, then charge him as bringing harm against the city.

He should face criminal charges for conspiring to violate state and federal laws regarding strawman gun purchases. The BATFE wrote him a strong "knock it off" letter, but the U.S. Attorney should have prosecuted.

Chas.

he must be givin' money to the right guy!

DoubleJ wrote:he must be givin' money to the right guy!

You can do that when your net worth starts with a "B."

Chas.