There is nothing in the record that supports the conclusion that defendants knew or should have known that sales of guns in their home states were having consequences in New York.

…

A particularly troubling aspect of the jurisdictional analysis conducted below is the reliance on what the district judge termed the defendants’ “cumulative parallel conduct” as a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction. According to the district court’s theory, although the “out-of-state activities of a single defendant alone may not suffice to establish jurisdiction,” because of “knowing parallel conduct, the extent of the combined harm may provide a basis for jurisdiction over each one.” 501 F. Supp. 2d at 422. The New York Court of Appeals has never adopted a theory pursuant to which combined or parallel conduct may be relied upon to establish a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant when jurisdiction does not otherwise exist.

…

The district court determined that an “inflexible application of a traditional jurisdictional analysis that fails to take account of unique practical commercial factors does not effectively insure the fair and orderly administration of the law.” Id. at 419. The court preferred to adopt what it termed a “reality-based pragmatic jurisdictional analysis.” Id. However, the district court was not free to depart from “traditional jurisdictional analysis” in order to hold defendants subject to suit in New York. The “fair and orderly administration of the law” is best achieved by applying the same standards to all litigants and by adherence to well-defined legal principles.

The district court’s jurisdictional analysis undermines the protection afforded to out-of-state defendants by section 302(a)(3)(ii). As both this Court and the New York Court of Appeals have previously explained, this provision “is intended to ensure some link between a defendant and New York State to make it reasonable to require a defendant to come to New York to answer for tortious conduct committed elsewhere.” LaMarca, 95 N.Y.2d at 215 (quoting Ingraham, 90 15 N.Y.2d at 598). The relevant long-arm provision is specifically “designed to . . . preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries who might cause direct, foreseeable injury within the State but ‘whose business operations are of a local character.’” Id. (quoting Ingraham, 90 N.Y.2d at 599). Here, it is indisputable that defendants’ businesses are of a local character.

The district court also asserted that “[t]here is no specific dollar threshold at which revenue becomes substantial for purposes of [section] 302(a)(3)(ii).”7 501 F. Supp. 2d at 417. Even if this is so, it was error to excuse the City from making any showing that defendants derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce.

Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The City of New York, Plaintiff-Appellee, – v – Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC,
May 4, 2011
[What isn’t, but should be, said is that “the district court” is Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein. Weinstein has long used tortuous chains of logic that blatantly violate due process, existing law, and previous decisions to arrive at anti-gun conclusions. This is not the first time Weinstein has been overturned on decisions he has made regarding firearms. His rulings have been so biased and clearly wrong they have frequently been overturned.

Mayor Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun bigots have never had anything but praise for him and take advantage of his bias against gun ownership.

• GUN MAKERS UNDER ATTACK IN COURTROOMS (1999)
• Statement of Dennis Henigan, Brady Center on Judge’s Ruling in Gun Violence Case (2003)
• Federal Judge Dismisses NAACP Lawsuit Against Gun Industry, But in 176-Page Decision Finds That Industry Practices Contribute to Gun Violence in New York (2003)
• BROOKLYN JURY DECISION PROPER, NOW JUDGE NEEDS TO CONCUR, SAYS SAF (2003)
• NEW YORK CITY’S GUN LAWSUIT GETS GREEN LIGHT FOR TRIAL, Judge Rejects Gun Industry’s Motion to Dismiss (2004)
• Federal Judge Finds New Law No Bar To New York City’s Lawsuit Against The Gun Industry (2005)
• SAF CALLS ON JUDGE WEINSTEIN TO STEP DOWN (2007)
• Mayor Bloomberg Notches Another Victory Against Illegal Guns (2008)
• BLOOMBERG OUTRAGE: ASKS JUDGE TO BAN 2ND AMENDMENT REFERENCES! (2008)
• SAF CHEERS FEDERAL COURT REJECTION OF BLOOMBERG LAWSUIT (2008)
• GA GUN DEALER MADE RIGHT MOVE IN QUEST FOR FAIR TRIAL, SAYS SAF (2008)

As Sebastian said, Judge Weinstein’s Game is Hopefully Over. He is now 90 years old and it is time for him to retire into the dustbin of history.—Joe]

The constitutional … right to keep and bear arms, Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, passed in 1998. It makes bearing arms a right, rather than a privilege, just like the right to free speech.

Just like free speech, we should not expect to have to purchase a permit or jump through bureaucratic hoops to exercise our freedoms. Some who oppose law-abiding fellow citizens from bearing arms would like to pretend that the Constitutional amendment was never passed. They are bringing up the same old arguments they offered back in the ’90s. Those arguments are now irrelevant. Our statutes must now conform to the constitution. That is how the system is supposed to work.

Jim Maas
April 17, 2011
Jim Maas column: Concealed carry is a right
[That is the way it is supposed to work but just like with the Jim Crow laws the bigots make it as difficult as they possibly can for minorities to exercise their rights. We have a lot of work to do to reach true equality.—Joe]

We are singular in the world culture in our tolerance of guns.

The United States has become a kind of underdeveloped moral Third World, a place where the rest of the world can indulge its gun lust.

Tom Diaz
Senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center.
May 23, 1999
Florida — Gun Culture Makes The U.S. A Trigger Point For Foreign Tourists With Firearms Fantasies
[This is from the dark days of the late 1990s. There are still troglodytes who think this way and want us to return to the age of clubs, rocks, and primitive knives even though most of the rest of the country is far more enlightened these days. Just don’t forget this is what they think of us and what they will do to our culture if they get the chance.—Joe]

When it comes to filing pro-gun lawsuits, SAF has an itchy trigger finger.

Alan Gottlieb
May 13, 2011
SAF sues Illinois over prohibition on self-defense carry
[While the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) doesn’t have a perfect record on lawsuits they have a record that is much better than the opposition and their competitors in the gun owner rights activist space. Donations to them are tax deductible and some companies will match your donations. I have a monthly donation deducted from my paycheck for them. Lets keep the momentum going. The only restriction on the speed of our advance should be the speed of the courts and sleep required by “The Two Alans.” Don’t let it be money.—Joe]

Despite all of the media hype, all of the fear mongering, and all of the misinformation, a vast majority of the Texas Senators tasked with researching and voting on this issue opted for empirical evidence over emotional rhetoric.

W. Scott Lewis
May 9, 2011
Texas Legislative Director, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
PRESS RELEASE: TEXAS SENATE PASSES CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS BILL
[Sebastian also got a copy of the release.

Empirical evidence. It’s odd how difficult it is to get people to consider that.

Oh well. Another step closer to total victory.—Joe]

You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or use any other word you think will work, but I’ve found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much the universal language.

Clint Smith
Director of Thunder Ranch
[This is very similar to something Greg Hamilton said. I agree with both. If you need to stop an attack the one method that works more reliably than any other is a gun pointed at the attacker.—Joe]

You need to talk guns all the time. You need to talk hunting all the time. The gun community should be all about public relations. We haven’t turned up the heat enough yet.

Ted Nugent
May 1, 2011
We must turn up the heat against ‘America hating’ Obama and the gun control lobby, says Ted Nugent
[Yup.—Joe]

No one can be serious about public safety unless they are serious about gun control. That’s an essential element in any balanced approach to public safety, which is a concern to people in the Lower Mainland and Canadians from coast to coast.

Michael Ignatieff
Canadian Liberal leader
April 26, 2011
[Interesting that he says that it’s an “essential element.” And the evidence for that is where? He might as well be saying “ni**er/Jew/Muslim/homosexual control is an essential element of  public safety”. I’m nearly certain it would be easier to find data to support my version than his. Yet even if the evidence supported such claims the answer in any case must be not only, “No,” but “Hell no!”—Joe]