| To all who will listen and take the time to understand. There
are people in this world who feel it's their responsibility to protect you from yourself, by viewing you only as part of a
group, with out consideration of you as an individual. I've always understood, a person's rights end at the end of another’s
nose. A thief lurks in the shadows awaiting the time to strike. An honest man faces another and speaks his mind. I have lived
my life as my father taught me. To be up front in all I do and to learn my limitations as well as my strengths. I have not
asked to be in this arena. In fact,I have been cast into it. I am just one person who has for the last 31 years in business
tried to be the best individual person and business man I know how to be. I understand the months ahead will be long and stressful,
but I promise, with Gods help, I will prevail.
11/25/2011 Following its successful appeal of Judge Weinstein’s Order entering
default judgment that resulted in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the injunction that had been entered against
it, Adventure Outdoors successfully negotiated with the City to resolve in its favor most of the issues on which the Second
Circuit had remanded the case. After Magistrate Judge Pollak recommended that the remaining issues in dispute be resolved
in favor of the City, Adventure Outdoors appealed to Judge Weinstein. On November 7, 2011, Judge Weinstein issued an
amended judgment resolving the issues in favor of Adventure Outdoors, something he would not have done but for the favorable
decision issued by the Court of Appeals, which criticized the manner in which he had been treating members of the firearms
industry and improperly exercising jurisdiction over them. Through its long and tenacious defense of the City’s
claims, Adventure Outdoors was able to successfully resolve this case and is not required to take any actions above and beyond
those it was already performing long before the City even filed suit against it. The action that Adventure Outdoors
commenced against Mayor Bloomberg in Georgia based on the false and defamatory statements he made about it at the time the
City commenced its lawsuit remains pending on a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
On November 15, 2011, Adventure Outdoors moved into its new 80,000 square foot store located at 2500 South Cobb Drive in Smyrna.
We thank you for your support during our five year long fight with the City and hope to see you soon at our new store.
* 05/04/2011 On May
4, 2011 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the injunction that had been entered by
Judge Weinstein that required Adventure Outdoors to be monitored by a Special Master. Enforcement of the injunction
had been stayed pending appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the injunction, which had been drafted by the City and
rubber-stamped by Judge Weinstein was defective for several reasons. The Second Circuit wrote that the injunction was
improper because it required Adventure Outdoors to “act ‘in full conformity with applicable laws pertaining to
firearms,’ and to ‘adopt appropriate prophylactic measures to prevent violation’ of those laws, without
specifying which laws are ‘applicable’ or identifying the ways in which [Adventure Outdoors had to alter its]
behavior to comply with those laws.” In addition the Court of Appeals noted that an injunction must be more specific
than a command to obey the law, and that the injunction entered by Judge Weinstein could be “read to prohibit not only
‘straw purchases’ — the sole kind of illegal practice identified in the City’s amended complaint
— but other, unidentified types of sales practices as well. An injunction is overbroad when it seeks to restrain
the defendants from engaging in legal conduct, or from engaging in illegal conduct that was not fairly the subject of litigation.”
The injunction was also h eld to be invalid because of the extent to which it improperly vested authority in the Special Master
to determine its terms and determine whether Adventure Outdoors violated the injunction because it improperly delegated the
Court’s authority to determine what is to be forbidden in an injunction. Finally, the Court held that the injunction
violated the requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it referenced the City’s amended
complaint for certain terms thereby precluding Adventure Outdoors from being able to determine from the four corners of the
injunction itself what it was required to do and prohibited from doing. At present there is no injunction in place against
Adventure Outdoors and, pursuant to the Second Circuit’s May 4 decision, any new injunction entered by Judge Weinstein
will necessarily be substantially different than those entered against the settling defendants who are currently subject to
monitoring by a Special Master. Also, Adventure Outdoors had been taking numerous steps above and beyond the requirements
of federal law to ensure that the firearms it sells do not end up in the hands of criminals or straw purchasers long before
the City ever filed suit against it, and it will continue to do so. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
even referred to Adventure Outdoors as being an exemplary dealer. Accordingly, it is doubtful that any injunction meeting
the requirements of the Second Circuit’s decision will impose any obligations on Adventure Outdoors above and beyond
what it has already been doing for years. Judge Wesley issued a well-reasoned sixteen page concurring opinion explaining
that Judge Weinstein’s “jurisdictional analysis has no basis in law” and noting that Adventure Outdoors
is not subject to personal juri sdiction in New York based on the New York long-arm statute and constitutional due process
principles. Adventure Outdoors had repeatedly — and, as confirmed on appeal, correctly — argued that it
was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York by moving to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction,
moving to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, raising personal jurisdiction as a defense in its
answer, moving for summary based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and repeatedly asking Judge Weinstein to certify the issue
of personal jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal. Despite Judge Weinstein’s refusal to apply clearly established
New York and federal law regarding personal jurisdiction, Adventure Outdoors was nevertheless prepared to defend itself before
a jury of its peers in Brooklyn.
When Judge Weinstein deprived Adventure Outdoors of its right
to a trial by jury just six days before trial was scheduled to begin, and held that he would decide the case as the finder
of fact, Adventure Outdoors concluded that presenting a defense in a bench trial would be a futile endeavor because it was
a foregone conclusion that the City’s hand-picked Judge would rule in its favor. Because of Adventure Outdoors’
decision not to present a defense at a bench trial with Judge Weinstein as the finder of fact, Judge Weinstein entered default
judgment against it. Unfortunately, the Second Circuit concluded that by deciding not to present a defense at a bench
trial before Judge Weinstein, Adventure Outdoors waived its right to challenge the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction
over it on appeal. The Court of Appeals mistakenly described lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense,
even though the City bore the burden of proof on that issue, and noted that its decision conflicts with the holdings
of other Circuit Courts. Adv enture Outdoors is accordingly exploring its options for further appellate review.
12/24/2010 UPDATE We await
a decision from the Second Circuit Court of appeals in New York City.
Our case in Georgia received bad news from the Georgia
Court of Appeals; the court turned down our appeal of the trail judge’s Anti-SLAPP ruling. A certificate of merit was not filed as required by Anti-Slap and
the court is refusing to look into the substance of our case. Our case is in jeopardy because of a procedural issue.
If we are not victorious in the Georgia Supreme Court, the substantive issues of our case will never be heard before
a jury or court proceeding.
05/15/2010 UPDATE In New York City oral argument was held before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 11, 2010 on Adventure Outdoors, Inc.’s appeal from the default judgment
and permanent injunction that had been entered against it by Judge Weinstein. Although the issues raised on the appeal
were whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over Adventure Outdoors, Inc., whether it had waived the defense
of lack of personal jurisdiction by not presenting a defense at trial, and whether the terms of the injunction were improper,
the Court of Appeals raised the issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Second Circuit ordered the
parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act eliminates
a court’s authority to hear qualified civil liability actions, which are defined as “a civil action or proceeding
or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade
association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties,
or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party,”
or instead provides a manufacturer or seller of firearms with a complete defense against such actions. In addition,
the Court of Appeals directed the parties to brief the issue of whether the allegations in the City’s amended complaint
that Adventure Outdoors, Inc. violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 922, 923, 924 and 1001 when it sold a pistol to a private investigator
hired by the City are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the predicate exception to the PLCAA. The predicate
exception removes from the definition of a qualified civil liability action “an action in which a manufacturer or seller
of [firearms] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [firearms], and the violation
was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”
Adventure Outdoors, Inc. submitted its supplemental brief on April 5, 2010, in which it argued that the language in the PLCAA
stating that a “qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court” was designed
to divest courts of subject matter jurisdiction over such actions. It also argued that the City’s amended complaint
failed to satisfy the requirements for the predicate exception because there is no private right of action for violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922, 923, 924 and 1001 and because the sale of a pistol to the City’ private investigator was
not the proximate cause of any harm sustained by the City. The City submitted its supplemental brief on April 19, 2010.
The City argued that the PLCAA was only intended to provide a defense, not to divest courts of subject matter jurisdiction
over qualified civil liability actions because Congress did not explicitly state that it was intended to affect jurisdiction.
The City also argued that its allegations that Adventure Outdoors, Inc. violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 922, 923, 924 and
1001 when it sold handguns to various alleged straw purchasers was sufficient to satisfy the predicate exception to the PLCAA. The supplemental briefing requested
by the Court of Appeals has been completed and we are now waiting for its decision.
The trip to United Sates Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went well. It was
definitely a fresh breath of justice compared to Weinstein's court. We are going back in the next couple of months to answer
more questions from the three judge panel. Victory is near!
Off to New York City again !
The judges for the March 11 oral
argument on Adventure Outdoors' appeal are Robert Sack
and Richard Wesley of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Richard
Eaton of the Court of International Trade. Judge Wesley, then on the New York
State Court of Appeals, wrote the decision in the Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. case,
which led to the reversal of Judge Weinstein's first decision against the firearms industry. General background
information on these judges from the courts' websites is as follows:
Robert D. Sack has, since August 6, 1998,
been a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with his chambers at 40 Foley Square. He took senior
status on August 6, 2009. During his 33 years in practice, he specialized in national and international press law. He was
a frequent lecturer and writer on press law topics and is the author of Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander, and Related Problems
(3d ed. 1999) and coauthor of Advertising and Commercial Speech: A First Amendment Guide (1999). Most recently, his article,
Protection of Opinion Under the First Amendment: Reflections on Alfred Hill, "Defamation and Privacy Under the First
Amendment," was published in the 100th Anniversary issue of the Columbia Law Review. On May 1, 2008, Judge Sack was awarded
the Federal Bar Council's Learned Hand Medal for excellence in federal jurisprudence. Judge Sack was an officer and director
of the William F. Kerby and Robert S. Potter Fund, which assists in funding the legal defense of journalists abroad, and a
member of the advisory boards of the Bureau of National Affairs' Media Law Reporter and the ABA Forum Committee's Communications
Lawyer. He is a member of the Board of Visitors of the Columbia Law School, and was a member of the Board of Trustees of Columbia
University Seminars on Media and Society, and was Chairman of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. He is also a
Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the
City of New York and the American Judicature Society. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. After graduating from
the University of Rochester in 1960 and Columbia Law School in 1963, Judge Sack clerked for United States District Judge Arthur
S. Lane, in the District of New Jersey. He later became an associate and partner at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler (1964-1986)
and a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1986-1998), both in New York City. In 1974, he served as a Senior Associate
Special Counsel to the United States House of Representatives Impeachment Inquiry Staff.
C. Wesley is a Judge of the United Sates Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At the time of his appointment in 2003,
he was a Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. Judge Wesley received his B.A. degree summa cum laude from the State University
of New York at Albany in 1971, and his J.D. degree from Cornell Law School in 1974. Judge Wesley engaged in the private practice
of law from the time of his admission to the New York Bar in 1975 until 1986. During three years of that period, 1979 until
1982, he also served as assistant counsel and chief legislative aide to New York Assembly Minority Leader James L. Emery.
In 1982, Judge Wesley was himself elected to the Assembly - and was re- elected in 1984 - representing Livingston, Allegany
and Ontario Counties. In 1986, Judge Wesley was elected to a 14-year term as a Justice of the New York Supreme Court from
the Seventh Judicial District. He served as Supervising Judge of that district's criminal courts from 1991 to 1994. In 1994
he was appointed by Governor Mario Cuomo to the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department. In 1997, he was appointed
a Judge of the New York Court of Appeals by Governor George Pataki, a position he held until joining the Federal judiciary.
Richard K. Eaton, born in Walton, N.Y.; son of Paul F. Eaton and Frances Kellogg Eaton; B.A., Ithaca College 1970;
J.D., Union University Albany Law School 1974; Chief of Staff, United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 1983, 1991-93;
associate attorney, Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon 1983-1991, partner 1993-95; partner Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan 1995-99; assumed duties as Judge of the United States Court of International Trade January 3, 2000.
We are currently researching
any decisions by these judges on relevant issues, such as personal jurisdiction.
“The case in which Adventure Outdoors has sued Mayor Bloomberg and others in the Georgia courts, remains bogged
down in procedural issues and legal challenges mounted by the mayor’s lawyers. A timely Notice of Appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals has been
filed, on the question of whether the Georgia Anti-SLAPP law applies to the allegedly defamatory statements made by the mayor
at the time he sued Adventure Outdoors in 2006. The position of Adventure Outdoors is that the law does not apply to
the situation presented in this case, and we remain confident the appellate courts in Georgia will so hold as well –
allowing our lawsuit to proceed.”
Briefing on Adventure Outdoors' appeal from the default judgment entered by Judge Weinstein was completed on January 22, 2010, and oral argument is scheduled for March 11, 2010, before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. The injunction entered against Adventure Outdoors, which appointed a Special Master to monitor
its sale of firearms, has been stayed pending a decision on its appeal. In its appeal, Adventure Outdoors argues that
the judgment and injunction entered against it are void because the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
did not have personal jurisdiction over it pursuant to the New York long-arm statute and that the terms
of the injunction are unconstitutionally vague. The City's primary argument in opposition to the appeal is that Adventure
Outdoors waived its right to appeal by not presenting a defense at trial, in which Judge Weinstein had decided that he
would deny Adventure Outdoors its right to a jury and serve as the finder of fact. In its reply, Adventure Outdoors
argues that because it had answered the City's complaint and preserved the issue of personal jurisdiction, as well as fully
completing discovery and all pre-trial activities, the City was not entitled to judgment in its favor and still had to prove
that it was entitled to the relief it sought and that the court had personal jurisdiction over Adventure Outdoors. We fully
expect the Second Circuit to rule in our favor before the end of the year.
Nothing new to report. All
courts remain the same. Over three years into it and a couple more to go. Keep checking in. I will post any new news as soon
as I hear something.
The wheels of Justice do turn slow as we all are learning in this
case. It has been over 3 years now since Bloomberg and his followers filed their law suite against Adventure Outdoors. Do
not fear our gloves remain high in the fight. Nothing has changed in New York as updated below a couple of months ago. In
the Georgia case the City has filed an Anti-Slapp motion. You can read the details of what this is at http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-georgia. Basically Anti-slapp is used to
protect the little guy from large corporations and other powerful individuals shutting down free speech. It is quit ironic
the City would file such a motion in this case. The big and powerful City of New York and its billionaire Mayor Bloomberg
think they are the little guys and need to be protected by anit-slapp? The motion has been filed and we await the Judges decision.
"On June 17, 2009, the City filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit seeking to dismiss Adventure Outdoors, Inc.'s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The City argues that
by not presenting a defense at a bench trial, Adventure Outdoors, Inc. waived its right to appeal the default judgment
entered against it, as well as the issue of whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over it. Adventure
Outdoors, Inc. filed its opposition to the City's motion to dismiss on June 29, 2009, arguing that because it had filed
an answer to the City's Amended Complaint and fully responded to the City's discovery requests, the City was still required
to prove at trial that it was entitled to the relief it is seeking, even if Adventure Outdoors, Inc. did not present
a defense. The City will have an opportunity to file a reply in further support of its motion to dismiss the appeal,
after it will be before the court for a decision. The court may allow oral argument or decide the motion on the papers.
In addition, the court could defer a ruling on the motion to dismiss to the panel that will decide the appeal. Once
the court has ruled on the motion to dismiss, Adventure Outdoors, Inc. will have thirty days to submit its appellate
brief and joint appendix."
In the City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. case, Judge Weinstein
granted default judgment on March 24, 2009 against the last defendant resisting the City’s efforts to regulate out-of-state
retail firearm dealers, Adventure Outdoors, Inc. The basis for the entry of default judgment against Adventure Outdoors, Inc.
was its decision not to present a defense at trial after Judge Weinstein decided, six days before jury selection was scheduled
to begin, that Adventure Outdoors, Inc. did not have a right to a trial by jury and that he would serve as the finder of fact.
Adventure Outdoors, Inc. believed that it was a foregone conclusion that the result of a trial in which Judge Weinstein served
as the finder of fact would be a judgment in favor of the City based on Judge Weinstein’s earlier written decisions
in the case and the fact that he had concluded that each and every firearm manufacturer and distributor defendant in the NAACP
v. A.A. Arms, Inc. case was responsible for creating a public nuisance in the City of New York, even though an advisory
jury had found that the majority of them had not and had been unable to reach a verdict as to the remaining defendants. Although
Judge Weinstein entered an injunction against Adventure Outdoors, Inc., appointing a special master to monitor its sales,
he stayed the entry of the injunction pending the completion of Adventure Outdoors, Inc.’s appeal to the Second Circuit,
which was filed on March 30, 2009.
On the Georgia side the case was formally transferred back to Cobb Superior Court on
March 12th to Judge Kreeger who was the State Court Judge handling the case over 2 years ago. Bloomberg's lawyers filed an
answer and a motion to dismiss (on anti-slapp grounds), on March 31st. This action was very predictable as their options are
running thin. We are finalizing our draft response, which will be filed on or before April 30th. We are very confident in
prevailing over their motion.
The next step will be filling for discovery. We get to do it all over again, except this time it’s
Mayor Bloomberg says on his weekly radio address as prepared for delivery
on 1010 WINS News Radio:http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/mayor_nyc_enters_new_year_with.html
"Take crime for example. Our police officers drove crime down another 4 percent in 2008, bringing our 7-year
decline to nearly 30 percent. 2008 also brought us a major victory in the fight against illegal guns. We settled the final
lawsuit against a group of out-of-state gun dealers whose illegal practices allowed guns to end up in the hands of criminals.
As part of the settlements, all of those dealers have now agreed to reform their sales practices - and that's going to make
our streets safer for police officers and all New Yorkers.
He hasn't settled any lawsuit with this dealer and I
have not agreed to reform any sales practices with him. The streets of NYC have never been made unsafe for police
officers and New Yorkers by Adventure Outdoors ! I care more and know more about proper sales practices than Michael Bloomberg!
We are very happy with this opinion.
We have not heard anything else from Judge Weinstein's Court.
The City asked for an appeal in the 11th circuit.
On September 16th we and the City stated our case before a three Judge panel. The law is on our side. The 11th
circuit will either send us back to Judge Forrester in federal court or send us back to state court in Cobb County. I could
not tell which way the court was leaning. The proceeding was very cut and dry. Hope to hear an answer in the next couple of
In New York
the City has filed a request for default judgment after being given a dead line by Magistrate Judge Pollock. I feel Judge
Weinstein will most likely rubber stamp what ever the City says about us and we will appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction
to the 2nd circuit. I will post more as soon as I hear something from either court. Thanks for all the kind words
and donations. Adventure Outdoors remains the last of 27 dealers standing up for your rights. We will not falter, we will
not fail, and we will remain steadfast until victory. 01/05/2009 UPDATE
NYC, foes split over effect of gun shop lawsuits
DAVID B. CARUSO
Its official now, Adventure Outdoors is the last store standing and fighting the on slot of Mayor
Bloomberg / Mayor’s Against Gun Violence and the City of New York. It is more important than ever for all freedom loving
Americans to join in this battle. Now they can focus all of their 5 law firms on Adventure Outdoors. Please continue to keep
us in your prayers and spread the word about this important case.
July 25, 2008
New page added
today. Look to the upper right side of this page for a drop down window. The page is called All About ATF Traces. This page
will be used to post trace related information. There is a sharp contrast on how traces should be handled.
July 21, 2008 UPDATE
has done nothing in regards to pursuing a default judgment as of this date. We patiently await their only move. The Georgia
front has taken a positive move forward. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has requested that each party file a supplemental
appellate brief of no more than ten pages by July 18th, which we have done, addressing the issue of whether the
court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. We have believed from the beginning this is not a Federal case and will
welcome it back to Cobb County Georgia. The City has done everything in its power to have the case moved to Federal Court
in NYC with Judge Weinstein. We will be back in court on September 16th to find out where the case will be tried.
May & June Updates go to the May Court / June Updates 08 Page on top right.