U.S. Service Rifle Small Arms Firing School (SAFS) TWO DAY CLINICS: TWO LOCATIONS - TWO DIFFERENT WEEKENDS -  April 8-9, 2001 @ Peconic River Sportsmen's Club, LI, NY OR April 21-22, 2001 @ Camp Smith, Peekskill, NY SHOOT M1, M14 (M1A), & M16 (AR15)

MID-HUDSON FRIENDS OF NRA APRIL 28TH, FISHKILL, NY (845) 297-8523 SOLD OUT Send in your money early next year.

   It really looks like Gov. "Mario" Pataki thinks that he does not need the sports person's vote to be reelected next year.  We have a long way to go but the feeling that I got during the March on Albany was not one that the Pataki had told any of the legislators that they should promise us anything or even be positive about any of the bills that we support being passed.  Not even the bills that would just correct specific problems and will have no impact on crime.  Things will be worse if a Democrat is elected but that is really going to be a hard sell to anyone that I have talked to.  It may not be logical but for the people that follow the gun control issue, they may not vote for a Democrat but they will not pull the lever for "Mario" Pataki.  Let me know what you think.

---

NEW LINK added to LINKS 2 page.
Black Man With A Gun & TENTH CAVALRY GUN CLUB
Promoting legal and safe gun ownership in the Black Community.

---

May 1st deadline for registration of Striker 12, Streetsweeper & USAS-12 Shotguns If you own one of these Shotguns you must register it.  It falls under the NFA rules and you will be in big trouble if you own one that is unregistered after May 1st and don't think that they are not going to come looking for you.  The form requires that:  "The Chief of Police, Sheriff, or other official acceptable to the Director must complete the “Law Enforcement Certification” below. ..." who must sign "I have no information indicating that the maker will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information
that POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM DESCRIBED IN ITEM 4 ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM WOULD PLACE THE MAKER IN VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW."  From what I have been told in the past, the FBI takes a dim view of an official who will not sign off on the form because they do not like the gun or a person having one but at this time a delay might be as good as not signing the form.  If that happens you have to try to get it to a Class 3 FFL holder and then pay them for the work + the $200 fee to get the gun back.  You will also need your fingerprints done.
You only have a few days left and it will take you several days to do the registration.
Click here for the ATF Press Release

---

• Never fear, Gov. Mairo Pataki is on the way.
• Crime Victims Tree Planting and Ceremony, April 25, 2001

NEW YORK STATE

• New York Appeals Court Makes Major Ruling in Our Favor
• Sen. H. R. C****** will be speaker ar Albany MMM March.
• MID-HUDSON FRIENDS OF NRA Dinner in FISHKILL, NY SOLD OUT

 
• FEC Looks at Schumer's $$ Books
• McCain and Liberman to call for new gun control.
• Rosie O's new poll

    On Wednesday, April 25, 2001

 The decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/I01_0040.htm

 Best to all,
 Patrick W. Brophy
 Co-Director, NYC Region, NYSRPA

This is what Hand Gun Control had to say:

    New York's highest court overturned a $4 million jury verdict in Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., finding that the plaintiffs had presented insufficient evidence to prove their case. The court left the door open to future cases against the gun industry, holding only that plaintiffs had failed to establish that the gun industry had a duty to protect handgun victims "given the evidence presented" in this specific case. The ruling, while a setback to the victims of gun violence in this case, is unlikely to have a significant impact on other lawsuits against the gun industry, as the other pending suits are based on a stronger evidentiary record than was presented in Hamilton. The ruling was also limited to a decision on plaintiffs' negligence theory, and did not rule on cases brought under a products liability theory. The court concluded, "Whether, in a different case, a duty may arise remains a question for the future."

However the quote they use is really taken out of context and would imply an open door where in reality all the quote represents is the crack at the at the bottom of a closed door.  The full quote is:

   ... Rather, a morecompelling policy reason -_ as was shown in the DES cases _- is required for the imposition of market share liability.
     Notably, courts in New York and other jurisdictions have refused to extend the market share theory where products were not fungible and differing degrees of risk were created (see, e.g., Brenner v American Cyanamid Co., 263 AD2d 165 [lead pigment used in paint]; Matter of New York State Silicone Breast Implant Litigation, supra [silicone breast implants]; DaSilva v American Tobacco Co.. 175 Misc 2d 424 [cigarettes]; see also, Sanderson v International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 950 F Supp 981 [CD Cal  1996] [perfumes containing different aldehydes]; Doe v Cutter Biological, 852 F Supp 909 [D. Idaho 1994] [blood clotting agent]; 210 East 86th Street Corp. v Combustion  Eng'g. Inc., 821 F Supp 125 [SDNY 1993] [asbestos]; Skipworth v Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., 690 A2d 169 [Pa 1997] [lead paint pigments]). Similarly, plaintiffs here have not shown a set of compelling circumstances akin to those in Hymowitz justifying a departure from traditional common-law principles of causation.
    This case challenges us to rethink traditional notions of duty, liability and causation. Tort law is ever changing; it is a reflection of the complexity and vitality of daily life. Although plaintiffs ave presented us with a novel theory -- negligent marketing of a potentially lethal yet legal product, based upon the acts not of one manufacturer, but of an industry - - we are unconvinced that, on the record before us, the duty plaintiffs wish to impose is either reasonable or circumscribed. Nor does the market share theory of liability accurately measure defendants' conduct. Whether, in a different case, a duty may arise remains a question for the future.