Your article doesn't say they have serial numbers and then go to the gun shops that sell them and put them out of business just the manufactures. That is a ds op to remove guns from the US since they can't remove the 2nd admendment.
New York subway shooting survivor sues gun manufacturer Glock
Reuters June 1, 2022 1:43 PM CDT | Last Updated 2 hours ago NEW YORK, June 1 (Reuters) - A New York woman who was injured during the April 12 mass shooting aboard a New York City subway car has sued Glock Inc, arguing the gun manufacturer should have known its weapons could be purchased by people with criminal intent.
Brooklyn resident Ilene Steur, 49, is seeking to have the Georgia-based company and its Austrian parent, Glock Ges.m.b.H, compensate her for physical injuries and emotional pain she suffered after she was shot on the northbound N train while on her way to work, according to the complaint.
Her lawsuit comes after New York state in 2021 passed a law allowing people affected by gun violence to sue gunmakers for creating a "nuisance" that endangers public safety and health. Steur asked a judge to order Glock to "eradicate the effects" of its marketing practices.
"The defendants' marketing and distribution practices made it far more likely that criminals, including Frank James, would obtain their weapons," Steur's lawyers wrote in a complaint filed on Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court.
Glock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The suit comes amid a renewed push to reform U.S. gun laws following a string of mass shootings, including the subway attack, a May 14 racist shooting in Buffalo, New York, that killed 10 people, and an elementary school shooting last week in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two teachers were killed. read more .. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-he-will-meet-with-congress-about-guns-2022-05-31/
Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis
Supreme Court takes new cases, including Mexican suit against U.S. gunmakers
"stockmule, Mexican cartels kill Mexicans with American guns. They get most of their guns from the U.S."
The Supreme Court added cases for its term starting Monday, including a lawsuit by Mexico seeking to hold U.S. gun makers liable for violence in that country.
The Supreme Court's new term starts Monday. (Allison Robbert/The Washington Post)
By Justin Jouvenal and Ann E. Marimow October 4, 2024 at 4:24 p.m. EDT
The Supreme Court on Friday added more than a dozen cases for its term starting Monday, including a lawsuit by the Mexican government seeking to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence there, a death penalty appeal and a lawsuit by a woman who says she was discriminated against for being heterosexual.
Mexico took legal action in 2021 against leading firearms manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta and Colt, accusing the companies of profiting for decades off the illegal smuggling of dangerous weapons to the powerful criminal organizations in that country.
The lawsuit does not accuse the gun manufacturers of directly colluding with the cartels, but said the manufacture of assault rifles and weapons with large capacity magazines has helped fuel the violence. They also assert that the manufacturers should have placed tighter controls on sales to keep the weapons from filtering south.
Mexico wrote in its brief that approximately 350,000 to 600,000 guns made by the manufacturers are trafficked into Mexico each year and almost half of all guns recovered at crime scenes are from the U.S. companies. Mexico alleges most of those guns were originally bought by “straw purchasers” in the United States who sell them to smugglers or traffic them to the cartels.
“The flood of Petitioners’ firearms from sources in the United States to cartels in Mexico is no accident,” the Mexican government wrote in the brief. “It results from Petitioners’ knowing and deliberate choice to supply their products to bad actors, to allow reckless and unlawful practices that feed the crime-gun pipeline, and to design and market their products in ways that Petitioners intend will drive up demand among the cartels.”
The seven gunmakers vigorously denied responsibility for violence in Mexico.
“Mexico’s suit has no business in an American court,” the gunmakers wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court.
Smith & Wesson M&P-15 semiautomatic rifles of the AR-15 style are displayed during the National Rifle Association annual meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston on May 28, 2022. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images)
The companies argue the lawsuit is preempted by the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gunmakers from criminal acts involving their weapons. A federal district court in Boston agreed and dismissed the case, before it was revived after an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The gun manufacturers then asked the high court to weigh in.
The Supreme Court’s new term is set to begin with oral arguments Monday. The court will take up its first significant case the next day, when it hears a challenge to the Biden administration’s regulations of “ghost guns,” the untraceable firearms made from homemade kits. Also on the docket are cases involving state bans on gender-affirming medical treatments for adolescents and age-verification requirements to protect minors from online pornography.
On Wednesday, the court is scheduled to consider the long-running death penalty case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man convicted in a 1997 murder. Prosecutors and defense attorneys say Glossip should receive a new trial after independent investigations revealed prosecutorial misconduct.
Death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean speaks May 4, 2023, outside the Oklahoma Supreme Court about continued attempts to halt the execution of Richard Glossip. (Sue Ogrocki/AP)
The court added a second death penalty case to its calendar Friday, announcing that it would review the request of a Texas death row inmate seeking access to DNA testing that he says would prove his innocence in a 1998 killing. In July, the justices intervened .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/17/supreme-court-stays-gutierrez-execution/?itid=lk_inline_manual_19 .. to delay the execution of Ruben Gutierrez, who was convicted of murder 25 years ago.
In 2020, the court stayed Gutierrez’s executionafter he challenged a Texas law that barred a spiritual adviser from being present with him in the execution chamber.
Gutierrez has for years sought to test the biological evidence collected at the crime scene, where an 85-year-old retired teacher was beaten to death in her mobile home, where she kept large amounts of cash. Evidence showed that two men entered the mobile home and that the victim, Escolastica Harrison, was stabbed to death. Gutierrez’s attorneys have said .. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-7809/315731/20240625164131272_24-06-25_CertPetition.pdf .. that he never entered her home.
In a statement after the court’s announcement, Gutierrez’s attorney Shawn Nolan said his client is “one step closer to finally doing the DNA testing that will overturn Ruben’s wrongful conviction and death sentence.”
[Insert: What? What could possibly justify the that Texas state law. Oh, sorry maybe it's another denial of science situation. no, surely that could not be it. ]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled against Gutierrez, saying his case was not affected by a separate Supreme Court decision involving a death row inmate in Texas seeking access to DNA testing.
[Again. Since DNA evidence has been key in either innocence or guilt decisions in so many other cases why shouldn't all like Gutierrez have access to it.]
The justices will also look at when law enforcement officers can be held accountable for using deadly force, in a case involving a fatal traffic stop in Texas. Ashtian Barnes was killed in 2016 by an officer outside Houston after being pulled over while driving a rental car, which had unpaid toll fees.
When Barnes began to pull away, officer Roberto Felix stood on the runner of the car and fired two shots, striking Barnes in the head and killing him, according to court filings. Barnes’s mother sued over the use of lethal force against her son, which she said is a violation of his constitutional rights.
The 5th Circuit upheld a lower court finding that the officer’s actions were reasonable under the appeals court’s current standard of review but called on the Supreme Court to clarify how courts should evaluate when deadly force is reasonable and constitutional.
In another case, the justices will take up the workplace discrimination complaint involving Marlean Ames, who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services saying she was passed over for a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.
Ames, who worked for the department for more than a decade, said her boss, a lesbian, chose a less qualified woman, also a lesbian, for the promotion Ames sought. Ames was then demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man, who Ames said was also less qualified.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sided with the state agency. Ames’s attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to address what they say is a higher bar for employees in a “majority group” to proceed with workplace discrimination claims.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost urged the justices to reject Ames’s claims, saying the department had “legitimate, nondiscriminatory, reasons for hiring someone other than Ames” and that she failed to introduce evidence that the people making hiring decisions knew of her sexual orientation.
In addition, the high court will take up the thorny issue of the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court a decision issued by the Fifth Circuit of Appeals that allowed Texas to challenge a federal plan to store tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste on the Permian Basin in the state.
The case will be the latest in a string the court has taken up in recent terms challenging the power of federal agencies. The Court will address who is allowed to challenge an action by an agency, possibly making it easier for more parties to seek court reviews.
Justin Jouvenal covers the Supreme Court. He previously covered policing and the courts locally and nationally. He joined The Post in 2009. follow on X @jjouvenal
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. follow on X @amarimow
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
