N.A.A.C.P. v. Acusport, Inc., Nos. 99 CV 3999(JBW), 99 CV 7037(JBW).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | Weinstein |
| Citation | 271 F.Supp.2d 435 |
| Parties | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Plaintiff, v. ACUSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 99 CV 3999(JBW), 99 CV 7037(JBW). |
v.
ACUSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants.
Page 436
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 437
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 438
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 439
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 440
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 441
Law Office of Elisa Barnes, LLC by Elisa Barnes, Monica Connell, Matthew S. Nosanchuk, New York, NY, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People by Dennis Courtland Hayes, Angela Ciccolo, Baltimore, MD, Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence by Sayre Weaver, Carolyn Morrissette, La Harra, CA, for Plaintiff, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Saiber Schlesinger Satz & Goldstein, LLC by David R. Gross, Christopher M. Chiafullo, Newark, NJ, for Defendants, AcuSport, Inc.; Alamo Leather Goods, Inc.; Bangers, LP; Bill Hick's & Co.; Brazas Sporting Arms, Inc.; Camfour, Inc.; Chattanooga Shooting Supplies, Inc.; Davidson's, Inc.; Dixie Shooters' Supply, Inc.; Ellett Brothers, Inc.; Euclid Avenue Sales Co.; Hicks, Inc.; Interstate Arms Corp.; Kiesler's Police Supply, Inc.; Lew Horton Distributing Company, Inc.; Lipsey's, Inc.; Ron Shirk's Shooters Supply; RSR Group, Inc.; Southern Ohio Gun, Inc.; Sports South, Inc.; Valor Corporation; Walter Craig, Inc.; Williams Shooters Supply, Inc.; Zanders Sporting Goods, Inc.
Renzulli, Pisciotti & Renzulli, LLP by John F. Renzulli, Leonard S. Rosenbaum, New York, NY, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP by Jonann Coniglio, Will Griffin, Karen S. Halbert, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants, Arms Technology, Inc.; Browning Arms Co.
Renzulli, Pisciotti & Renzulli, LLP by John F. Renzulli, Leonard S. Rosenbaum, Scott C. Allan, New York, NY, for Defendants, Beemiller, Inc. d/b/a Hi-Point Firearms; Bersa S.A.; Century International Arms, Inc.; Eagle Imports, Inc.; European American Armory Corp.; Fratelli Tanfoglio S.n.c.; Glock Ges.m.b.H.; Glock, Inc.; Haskell Manufacturing, Inc.; Import Sports, Inc.; Israel Military Industries, Ltd.; K.B.I., Inc.; Kel-Tec CNC Industries, Inc.; Magnum Research, Inc.; Para-Ordnance, Inc.; Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc.; SGS Importers International, Inc.
Morrison, Mahoney & Miller, LLP by Brian Preston Heermance, New York, NY, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes by Lauren Lacey, Guido Porcarelli, Robert E. Scott, Jr., Baltimore, MD, Bruinsma & Hewitt by Michael C. Hewitt, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendants, B.L. Jennings, Inc.; Bryco Arms, Inc.
Budd, Larner, Gross, Rosenbaum, Greenberg & Sade by Timothy A. Bumann, Jennifer C. Kane, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants, Braztech International L.C.; Forjas Taurus SA; Heritage Manufacturing, Inc.; Rossi SA; Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.
Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom by Terry Moritz, Roger A. Lewis, Chicago, IL, Balber, Pickard, Battistoni, Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, P.C. by Thomas P. Battistoni, New York, NY, for Defendant Carl Walther GmbH.
Pino & Associates by Thomas Edward Healy, White Plains, NY, for Defendants, Ceska Zbrojovka, A.S.; CZ-USA, Inc.; Excel Industries.
By Timothy G. Atwood, Shelton, CT, for Defendants, Charco 2000, Inc.; International Armament Corp. d/b/a Interarms; L.W. Seecamp Company, Inc.; Uberti (U.S.A.), Inc.
Jones Day by Thomas E. Fennell, Michael L. Rice, Dallas, TX, Pino & Associates by Thomas Edward Healy, White Plains, NY, for Defendant, Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC by Lawrence S. Greenwald, Catherine A. Bledsoe, Lawrence P. Fletcher-Hill, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant, Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Beretta S.p.A.
Salviano & Tobias, P.C. by David G. Tobias, New York, NY, Wiedner & McAuliffe,
Page 442
Ltd. by Richard J. Leamy, Jr., Chicago, IL, for Defendants, Faber Bros., Inc.; Riley's, Inc.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP by Robert L. Joyce, New York, NY, for Defendants, Hammerli Ltd., a.k.a. Hammerli GmbH; Sigarms Inc.; SIG/Sauer.
Scott L. Braum & Associates, Ltd. by Scott L. Braum, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant, MKS Supply Co.
Post, Polak, Goodsell & McNeill by Frederick B. Polak, Roseland, NJ, for Defendant, Navy Arms Company, Inc.
Beckman and Associates by Bradley T. Beckman, Craig D. Harvath, Shane J. Harrington, Alisa Pindziak Marion, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant, North American Arms.
Tarics & Carrington, PC, by Michael J. Zomcik, Michael Branisa, Houston, TX, for Defendant, Phoenix Arms.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP by Gary R. Long, Jeffrey S. Nelson, Tina Marie Schaefer, Stacey Elaine Deere, Kansas City, MO, Greenberg & Traurig by Joel M. Cohen, New York, NY, for Defendant, Smith & Wesson Corp.
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon by James P. Dorr, Anne Giddings Kimball, Chicago, IL, for Defendant, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
Friedman & Harfenist by Steven Jay Harfenist, Lake Success, NY, for Defendant Sylvia Daniel.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General by Peter B. Pope, Hilary Weisman New York, NY, for Observer, Attorney General of the State of New York.
Michael Cardozo, Corporation Counsel by Eric Proshansky, New York, N.Y. for Observer, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.
United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York by F. Franklin Amanat, Vincent Lipari, Brooklyn, NY, for Observer, Attorney General of the United States.
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
Table of Contents
PART ONE
Summary of Case 446
I. Contentions of Parties..................................................446
II. Factual Background .....................................................447
III. Law ....................................................................448
IV. Procedures .............................................................449
V. Conclusions of Fact and Law ............................................449
A. Nuisance and Its Causes and Prevention ..............................449
B. Failure to Prove a Special Kind of Harm .............................451
C. Culpability for Violent Urban Crime .................................451
PART TWO
Findings of Law 454
Page 443
I. Standing and Jurisdiction...............................................454
A. Standing.............................................................454
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction..........................................455
C. Personal Jurisdiction................................................455
II. Potential Bars..........................................................456
A. Effect of the Hamilton Litigation and People of the State of New York
v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. .............................................456
1. Background .......................................................456
a. Hamilton.......................................................456
b. People of the State of New York v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. .........457
2. Stare Decisis and the Rule of Erie ...............................459
3. Res Judicata .....................................................459
B. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution...................462
C. Commerce Clause .....................................................463
D. Principles of Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Comity...........464
III. Jury ...................................................................464
A. Procedures Used .....................................................465
B. Seventh Amendment Right to a Trial by Jury ..........................465
C. The Advisory Jury ...................................................467
1. Use in an Equitable Action to Enjoin a Public Nuisance ...........469
2. Verdict is Non-Binding ...........................................471
3. Non-Unanimous Verdict.............................................473
IV. Burden of Proof ........................................................477
A. New York State Law Determines the Burden of Proof....................477
B. Burden of Proof is Clear and Convincing Evidence ....................477
V. Public Nuisance ........................................................480
A. History and Development .............................................480
B. Law .................................................................482
1. Existence of a Public Nuisance....................................482
2. Conduct of the Defendants Creating, Contributing to, or Maintaining
the Nuisance ...................................................487
a. Tortious Conduct...............................................487
(1). Intentional Conduct........................................487
(2). Negligent Conduct .........................................489
b. Causation .....................................................492
(1). Factual Cause .............................................492
(2). Proximate Cause ...........................................495
3. Particular Harm ..................................................497
PART THREE
Findings of Fact 499
PART THREE A
Findings Based upon Defendants' Proposed Findings as Modified by the Court 499
I. Procedural Posture .....................................................499
II. Parties.................................................................499
III. Related Litigation .....................................................500
IV. Structure of Firearms Market............................................501
V. Regulation of the Firearms Market ......................................501
Page 444
VI. Tracing ................................................................503
A. AFT Disclosure of Trace Data.........................................503
B. Limitations of Trace Data ...........................................504
C. Use of Trace Data — Generally .................................505
D. Use of Trace Data — Focused Inspections .......................506
VII....To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Islip v. Datre, No. 16–CV–2156
...different in kind from that suffered by the community at large as a result of that public nuisance. N.A.A.C.P. v. AcuSport, Inc. , 271 F.Supp.2d 435, 448 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Significantly, both torts require intentional or negligent conduct on the part of a defendant. Although "the release or ......
-
State ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson, 118474
...be found in traditional tort actions of intent, negligence, and strict liability, and such was noted in N.A.A.C.P. v. AcuSport, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), where the court relied on Dean William Prosser. As a general term, "nuisance" "means no than harm, injury, inconvenience, ......
-
Johnson v. Bryco Arms, No. 03 CV 2582(JBW).
...in kind from that suffered by the community at large. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Acusport, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 435, 482 (E.D.N.Y.2003) Page 391 Under New York law, a claim for public nuisance may lie against members of the gun industry whose marketing and ......
-
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 00 CV 3641(JBW).
...comprehensive review of such information was conducted, following extensive discovery and expert analysis, in NAACP v. Acusport, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y.2003) ("NAACP"). Preliminary examination of this material is prudent in light of recent cases interpreting New York law as requir......
-
Town of Islip v. Datre, No. 16–CV–2156
...different in kind from that suffered by the community at large as a result of that public nuisance. N.A.A.C.P. v. AcuSport, Inc. , 271 F.Supp.2d 435, 448 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Significantly, both torts require intentional or negligent conduct on the part of a defendant. Although "the release or ......
-
State ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson, 118474
...be found in traditional tort actions of intent, negligence, and strict liability, and such was noted in N.A.A.C.P. v. AcuSport, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), where the court relied on Dean William Prosser. As a general term, "nuisance" "means no than harm, injury, inconvenience, ......
-
Johnson v. Bryco Arms, No. 03 CV 2582(JBW).
...in kind from that suffered by the community at large. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Acusport, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 435, 482 (E.D.N.Y.2003) Page 391 Under New York law, a claim for public nuisance may lie against members of the gun industry whose marketing and ......
-
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 00 CV 3641(JBW).
...comprehensive review of such information was conducted, following extensive discovery and expert analysis, in NAACP v. Acusport, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y.2003) ("NAACP"). Preliminary examination of this material is prudent in light of recent cases interpreting New York law as requir......
-
The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance.
...into the illegal market and used in crime, and that substantial harm to the public will result.'" (quoting NAACP v. AcuSport, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 435, 488 (E.D.N.Y. (285.) RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS [section] 825 cmt. d (AM. L. INST. 1979). (286.) See, e.g., Chuck Salter, Jeffrey Wigan......