State Appellate Court Rules That Man Can Sue Gun Industry for Injuries Sustained After Being Shot by One of Their Guns!! [VIDEO]
The Buffalo News reported a HUGE story this morning involving a Buffalo man (Danny “Bud” Williams) that was shot ten years ago while playing basketball outside of his home. Williams was an innocent victim who was shot by a Cornell Caldwell. Caldwell and the man who sold Caldwell the gun (James Nigel Bostic) were both arrested and imprisoned. Danny “Bud” Williams was a star basketball player at McKinley High School in Buffalo and was being recruited by Division 1 colleges before his injuries from the shooting in 2003 ended his chances of pursuing any offers to play basketball for any of the schools recruiting him.
Attorneys for Mr. Williams have claimed that the manufacturer of the gun used in the shooting (Beemiller) is liable for the injuries and shooting which left Danny “Bud” Williams’ stomach damaged to the extent that it ended his chances of playing basketball at the Division 1 college level. Williams’ attorney contends that the gun manufacturer (Beemiller), the distributor (MKS), and the dealer (Bostik), knew the guns they made, distributed, and sold ( which were specifically….”Saturday Night Special”, inexpensive 9mm Hi-Point brand guns) , were “tied to urban street crimes”, according to the Buffalo News.
According to the Buffalo News, a ruling in 2005 ( called the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act …according to the Brady Center in Washington, DC) states that gun manufacturers are NOT liable for injuries or the consequences rendered by individuals using the guns the manufacturer makes and distributes. However, there are some stipulations and in the William’s case, such that there are some exemptions to the ruling this case qualifies for… making it possible for William’s to sue the manufacturer.
According to the Buffalo News, the State Appellate Court in Rochester, NY over-ruled an earlier hearing in the case on September 6, and determined that…in their opinion…there is ample evidence in Williams’ case to support it being eligible for the “exemption category” with respect to the manufacturer, distributor and owner knowing the nature of the guns sold.
Do you think it’s fair that a gun manufacturers should be held liable for Danny “Bud” Williams’, or anyone’s, injuries caused by one of their guns?