NY Appeals Court Allows Shooting Victim To Sue Hi-Point

The Blaze reports

The ruling by the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court‘s 2011 dismissal of victim Daniel Williams’ complaint, which accused Ohio gun maker Hi-Point and distributor MKS Supply Inc. of Ohio of intentionally supplying handguns to irresponsible dealers because they profited from sales to the criminal gun market.

The appellate panel said the Buffalo man‘s lawsuit should have been allowed to move forward because Williams’ claims fall within exceptions contained in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

Williams’ attorneys claimed the Ohio dealer, Charles Brown, knew or should have known that Bostic was buying the handguns to resell on the streets because he paid cash, chose Hi-Point 9 mm guns favored by criminals and bought them in bulk. Hi-Point and MKS should have known that Brown, who has since become president of MKS, was distributing the guns they supplied to him to criminals, Williams said.

This seems to me to be vexatious litigation. Neither of the companies they are suing actually sold guns to the straw buyers. They need to prove that the wholesaler and the manufacturer somehow knew who the retailer was selling guns to. This case should never have been allowed to go forward.

C-9 9MM

[ Many thanks to jdun1911 for emailing me the link. ]

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • El Duderino

    So if I rob a bank with a banana in my coat pocket, can the bank sue Chiquita?

  • Samopal

    Only if you pay with cash and buy in bulk, because no honest man needs more than 10 bananas.

    • Samopal

      That was supposed to be a response to El Duderino.

      I really hope the complaint gets thrown out in court and Hi-Point counter-sues for wasting their time and money. This kind of frivolous crap is what destroyed whole companies and neutered others in the late 80s and early 90s.

      • Mike

        Frivolous lawsuits: as American as the apple pie.
        Seriously, this kind of stuff must stop. When I read the news from US, there’s a mention of some stupid-ass frivolous lawsuit over this, that or other every goddamned week. Seriously now?!

      • Chase

        @Mike: It’s true. Frivolous and vexatious lawsuits are quickly replacing baseball as the national sport in my country. It’s tragic, and I don’t know why it’s happening.

        I can’t prove it over the Internet, but my aunt is the manager of the McDonald’s that was sued for making their coffee too hot.

    • Jacob

      “In October 2000, Brown sold 87 handguns, including the gun at issue, to defendants Kimberly Upshaw and James Nigel Bostic at a gun show in Ohio.”

      87 cheap handguns in cash. I don’t know about anybody else but that kinda sets a red flag off for me.

      Bad dealers are bad for us all.

      • Samopal

        I didn’t know the actual number, that is beyond ridiculous. Any dealer with a conscience would at least question why someone was buying 87 cheap handguns all at once.

    • Flounder

      Everyone is making a big deal about paying in cash… Wasn’t the purchase made at a gunshow? How else would someone pay for guns at a gun show?

      But the number of guns all at once no matter how cheap was kinda sketchy… Although it reminds me of trying to buy a crate of mosin nagants or of sks’s or of nagant revolvers…

      • karl

        What’s the big deal about paying in cash? Every gun I’ve bought I paid for with cash.

  • tudza

    I own one of these. Am I a criminal now?

    I’m not sure why these would be favored by criminals. With the right ammo mine works great. With the crap they sell me at the pistol range it jams all the time, and not just in my pistol but the ones they rent.

    I can’t see anyone looking cool shooting this held sideways either.

    • Other Steve

      You’re probably not a criminal exactly, but your choice in firearms is.

    • RocketScientist

      I can see why criminals would like Hi-Points: They are DIRT FRIGGIN CHEAP. a Hi-Point in .45 was the first pistol I ever bought for myself for this exact reason. I wanted something in .45, and was on a miniscule budget. You can get a 9mm or .45 for dirt cheap (so if you dispose of it after a particularly nasty crime, no big loss) and despite the opinions of those on the internet who have never held, shot or owned one, they are pretty reliable (not enough to count on as a CCW piece, but more than adequate for range use, and more reliable than some big name ‘quality’ 1911’s and other semi-auto pistols I’ve owned). A side benefit I noted is mine is actually pretty accurate (I’m guessing due to being direct blowback with a fixed barrel) and recoil is very light (due to the heavy weight). But I’m guessing the main appeal to criminals is their loooooooooow price point.

      • El Duderino

        I am trying to convince a friend to save his $ and get a P250, G21, budget 1911 (he wants a .45 obviously). But if you just don’t have the scratch Hi-Point is it for 9mm, .40, and .45.

  • bbmg

    Why isn’t he taking the bullet manufacturer to court? That’s what ended up in his stomach anyway. What about the powder manufacturer? What about the chemical company that provided the material for the primer?

    The gun in question is just a single link in an extremely long and complex chain of events that resulted in this unfortunate man being shot. To single it out as the cause of his troubles is unfair to say the least.

  • Mr. Fahrenheit

    This isn’t as scary as it seems. I doubt, S&W, Glock, Springfield, or any other firearm manufacturer is losing any sleep over this.

    If you read the opinion:


    The plaintiff is saying Hi-Point and and the FFL dealer selling to the straw buyer had quite the cozy relationship.

    “They need to prove that the wholesaler and the manufacturer somehow knew who the retailer was selling guns to. This case should never have been allowed to go forward.”
    You can’t do one without the other, Steve. No doubt Hi-Point is going to come back and say that they had no idea the FFL was selling to a straw purchaser. Though, from what I’ve been reading…it doesn’t look great for Hi-Point. Not terrible…but not great either.

  • Chucky

    Reading the title I immediately assumed the plaintiff was suing for being shot by an ugly gun.

  • dallasdeadeye

    he needs to sue nyc for making it so hard to get a ccw license. negligent stupidity. criminals are out there and noones got your back but yourself, once you realize that its simple, gear up or stay at home.

  • Jeff Smith

    This sounds exactly like the plot of the movie Runaway Jury.

    • bbmg

      A despicable movie if ever there was one, can’t believe I sat through it.

  • Klonoa Xero

    If this is ok to do to gun manufacturers, next will be automobiles. Dealers routinely sell to drunks who then wreck and kill others. And we all know dealers will sell to anyone with money. Ohhhh wait, the goverment pretty much owns our manufacturing plants….

  • RocketScientist

    So basically what happened is Hi-Point sold guns to MKS (a firearms wholesaler and only distributor of Hi-Point Firearms). MKS then sold large amounts of these guns to Charles Brown, another FFL holder. Brown then sold hundreds of these guns to Kim Upshaw and Nigel Bostick (a convicted felon). Bostick then sold these guns on the black market to criminals, one of whom shot the plaintiff (a high-school student). It seems obvious Bostick violated the law (he was a black-market arms dealer). It also can be argued pretty effectively that Brown violated the law by selling to Bostick/Upshaw as it was reasonably obvious it was a straw purchase (Bostick used Upshaw and other to purchase several large lots of guns, paid in cash, which Bostick picked out while the others filled out the paperwork… a legit FFL would have had all kinds of alarm bells going off). At first I didn’t see how MKS or Hi-Point could get tied up in this, as they simply transferred guns legally to another valid FFL holder (Hi-Point to MKS, MKS to Brown). But then you read that:

    “Plaintiffs allege that Beemiller [Hi-Point’s parent company] and MKS supplied handguns to Brown even though they knew or should have known that he was distributing those guns to unlawful purchasers for trafficking into the criminal market. In support thereof, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that from 1988 through 2000, ATF notified Beemiller and MKS that over 13,000 guns they sold had been used in crimes. Notably, MKS is allegedly the “sole marketer and distributor of Hi-Point firearms,” and Brown, who is now the president of MKS, was a high-level officer during the relevant time period. “

    At the very least, there is valid reason to suspect that MKS as a corporate entity was complicit in this (a high-ranking officer and later president of the company was the one selling to obvious straw purchasers). I guess it remains to be seen if they can connect the dots enough to implicate Hi-Point as well.

  • gunslinger

    humm…so, HP sold to a distributor. the distributor then sold 87 guns (at once?), in cash to a guy at a gunshow? i call that a red flag. and i’m guessing that if they were new guns, the ATF would need a call…for each gun? 87 forms filled out? this thing doesnt sound as open/shut as it seems.

    now, how far do we have to go to “protect” us? i mean, mfg sells to distributor, then distributor sells to gun shops and shops sell to people. unless i’m missing something here.

    either way, i still think the plaintiff has it wrong.

    • RocketScientist

      Not to nit-pick, but Hi-Point sold them to their only distributor (MKS), and then a high-ranking employee at MKS who has since become their president (Brown) purchased a bunch of them for himself. BROWN then sold them in what was obviously a straw purchase at a gun show. It’s not been made clear to me if Brown himself has an FFL independent of MKS’, though that is how it is sounds. Either way, it seems Brown definitely broke the law, and depending on how aware MKS as a corporate entity was of his dealings, they might be liable too. And since they are Hi-Point’s only distributor, it certainly is possible that Hi-Point could be complicit as well, though making that assertion with that many degrees-of-separation would be very tough without some VERY damning evidence (ie emails from Hi-Point CEO asking “How’s the plan to sell all those guns to the black-market dealer going?” or something equally incriminating).

      • kelley

        Hey Rocket ….. Why is it an obvious straw purchase from my reading it is obvious not a straw purchase. You are not from OHIO are you or your not a gun owner in OHIO or you just like to shoot your rocket mouth off without 1) Knowing the laws of OHio 2) bothering to learn the laws of buying a guns in ohio.

        If Mr. Brown Bought guns like anyother OHIO citizen from a FFL then his FFL would do the FBI check on him. Then if Mr Brown as a private citizen went to a OHIO gun show and sold 1 or 10,000 guns to another private citizen then Mr Brown is not obligated nor required by law to do a backround check on the person he is selling to. Another fact you might like is that MOST gun sales and ammo sales sold at gun shows are cash transactions. Only time you need a backround check is if you buy at a gun shop or if the gun is bought out of state and shipped to ohio like in an on-line auction.
        have a nice day

      • RocketScientist

        The laws in my state are similar to those in Ohio, with regards to allowing private transfer of guns without FFL (sometimes erroneously referred to as the ‘gun show loophole’). If you had actually read my post you would have seen that I specifically said it was not clear to me if Brown himself had an FFL or not. However, FEDERAL law requires anyone engaged in the selling of firearms as a regular business to have an FFL and every firearms transfer by an FFL must follow proper procedures (and as an FFL you are personally responsible for nixing suspected straw purchases). State laws can be more strict than federal law (as in, disallowing private transfers like in some states) but cannot be more lenient. Under federal law, as an individual without an FFL you may sell guns to another, for selling off a gun here or there, making room in your collection, etc. If you are selling them as a regular business however, you are in violation of federal law. Where the line is between the two is not defined, so yes, you could CLAIM you sold 10,000 guns (your example) to another person, but good luck justifying that to a court as not being a business for you. So brown either had an FFL and violated federal law by not performing background checks or not stopping an obvious straw purchase, or he did NOT have an FFL and violated federal law by selling guns as a business without an FFL.

  • Lance

    Looks like this is the first legal test of PLCA and it may goto high courts. Anti-gunner are despretly trying to fin a way to sue gun maker into oblivion and so they invent loop holes to try to lie there way to it.

    Overall though Hi Point are crappy pistols so doesn’t bother me.

    • B

      Lance – have you actually owned, or even used, a Hi Point, or are you going by hearsay?
      For the cost, you’re getting a hell of a gun. It is rugged and fairly reliable with decent maintenance, and it comes with a lifetime warranty. Yes, there are downsides – it is bulky, and accessories or customization is almost non-existent. However, when push comes to shove, if you took care of it, it will work for you.
      I didn’t sell many of these, but out of the ones I did sell, I only had one come back, and that was part of a trade in for something else.
      tl;dr – don’t knock them until you try them.
      On a more important note – if this happens to Hi-Point it sets precedence and allows for litigation against companies you do care about. So, regardless of how you feel about the company, you should worry about its outcome.

      • KM

        The funny thing is that Hi points may be decent guns, never having owned one myself, but seem to have a lot of mindless bashing from people who have never owned one.

        On the other hand, Kel-Tecs are garbage, but their own owners lie about them and how great they are. Owning them I know that there is no such thing as a flawless Kel-Tec. It is physically impossible with the inherent low quality of the parts they use.

        The answer is we need more hipster gun owners to prop up the Hi Point market and make them fashionable

      • The Brigadier

        The barrels are welded to the action so your pistol life is keyed to the barrel’s life. There is a YouTube vid about a guy with a Hi-point firing .45 solid steel rods (single shot) out of his Hi-Point and the strong thing handled it time and time again. I cringed every time he pulled the trigger and those rods went flying down range. After several dozen firings he loaded up a mag and fired all 10 rounds and the grouping wasn’t bad. The barrel was lightly scored and nothing appeared to be close to severely damaged. Its inexpensive, very strong and fits your hand very well. I wouldn’t buy it, but I would use it if one was given to me.

  • ¤

    So hi point is getting sued for selling to a distributor, and the distributor sold right to an individual, or to an FFL? as soon as the buyer filed out his paperwork and passed the background check Hi point should be off the hook, the distributor may be in the wrong though if they were selling to someone they knew would do straw sales, but hipoint did nothing wrong since MKS is their only distributor.

    And to all the morons on here saying Hi points are POS, please make/ find me a better gun with better parts, and a better warranty, and allowing hi point to be sued opens up the possibility for your favorite manufacturer to get the shaft in the courts by an anti gun judge


  • FoxMc

    How is the distributor to know the buyer was selling the guns on the street? It’s not their responsibility to ask why the buyer was buying these in bulk. Maybe it was for a legitimate business reason like outfitting a security firm, or providing loaner guns for CCW classes. It’s the BATFE’s responsibility to figure out the why… the distributor is there to make a profit, it all legal forms were filed properly, they have no further duty. The maker legally transferred the guns to a licensed dealer, they have no responsibility in this at all…

    • The Bobcat

      I believe you are exactly correct but in the end if Hi-point is found to be guilty then shouldn’t the licensing agency that licensed the illegal dealer be tried for the same accusations There as responsible as anybody?

      Isn’t that how it works now days?

  • AL

    FIRST and foremost, Hi-Points responsibility to the state ends when the weapon is sold to the FFL. What is done after that, unless by defect of the firearm on the end user, is done. Plain and simple people have to find somebody to blame, they might as well blame Beretta and Glock for so many gang related shootings, or Kalashnikov. It takes an entire company to make a firearm, it only takes one moron to sue them after improper/illegal use of said firearm.

    • RocketScientist

      That is true, unless the firearms manufacturer (Hi-Point) knew that the person/entity they were selling to was intentionally diverting them to the black market, which is exactly what the plaintiff is alleging in this lawsuit. Considering the FFL that Hi-Point sold to is their only distributor (and as such they probably have a close working relationship with them), and it was this distributor’s President that was doing the black-market diversion, this allegation certainly sounds possible. Only the exposure of all the facts will tell the true tale, and that is what trials are for.

      Don’t get me wrong, I like Hi-Point (they were the first pistol I ever bought for myself years ago) and I hope they are fully vindicated in all this. I think that seems likely, as even if they WERE actually guilty of the allegations, there are enough degrees-of-separation between them and the criminals that there would need to be some VERY unequivocal and damning evidence to prove it.

  • Mike Knox

    Is it me, or is Hi-point becoming the butt monkey of the firearms industry?

  • Rick

    I have already called the attorney who represented me in my motorcycle accident case, and if or when the court rules against Hi-Point he is to file papers against General Motors and Honda Motor Corporation for manufacturing the vehicles responsible for my permanent back injury. Dead serious. If they can do this because of one manufactured article, all are fair game IMHO.

    • Jacob

      87 handguns to one person paid in cash at a gun show. Sold by the person who is now the president of Hi-Point’s distributor. Ummmm…. Sounds fishy to me.

  • David

    Hi-Points are favored by criminals because criminals can afford them!

    • DroneAlone

      Criminals don’t/can’t typically buy guns legally…

      Many Americans lawfully defend themselves and their families with Hi-Points. People who aren’t wealthy, or who choose to spend their disposable income elsewhere are well served by these reliable, inexpensive firearms.

      Hi-Point has a great reputation for awesome customer service as well.

  • Nairb

    Time to go buy a few Hi-Point pistols and support another beleaguered arms manufacturer. Will we allow Hi-Point to join Bryco, Jennings, Raven, Davis, etc. in the gun graveyard?

    • DroneAlone

      I’m with you. A 9mm carbine would be a homely, but worthy, addition.

  • Charlie

    I own a Hi-Point hand gun in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45ACP and several more in the carbines. I’ve never had a problem with any of them so I’ve never had to use the lifetime warranty. Yes they are inexpensive, but don’t working Americans had the right to affordable handguns? Not everyone can afford a Glock or a Baretta. I do own a Glock and a Springfield XD for CCW purposes, but for home defense purposes I’m more likely to go to one of my Hi-Point carbines.

    • mosinman

      plus our fellow Americans get payed to make them too

      • DroneAlone

        And I may have to buy one, even though I don’t need another firearm, just to support a good American company that stands behind their products and the American workers who build them.

  • Scott Schoemann

    There are questions that are NOT being answered as of yet. Such as WAS this a straw purchase or was it an FFL to FFL stocking sale. Which is completely legal. It IS UNLAWFUL for someone to purchase firearms with the INTENT to resell them WITHOUT an FFL and since Brown wasnt charged with a violation we must assume he made a lawful sale to another FFL holder OR followed the Brady Background check regulations on the sale of EACH individual handgun per FEDERAL LAW…

    Now Rocket Scientist is posting a line of flagrant lies in this thread, which are proven by his claims of Hi-points violations extending back to 1988, which is shown to be false as Hi-point was first founded in 1992, four years later, so everything that individual has posted MUST be dismissed with extreme prejudice. Anf for the commentary by the uninformed, Hi-points are NOT purchased by criminals to commit crimes because they are cheap. Criminals DO NOT purchase firearms through legal channels as this allows the weapons to be traced back to them and as such identify them. Firearms used in crimes are stolen or purchased from those who stole them. Hot firearms are much cheaper than the market value BECAUSE they are stolen and can be obtained for less than a Hi-point can be bought for. Further, the Hi-Points are disregarded in the criminal world because they look too much like “toys” and not recognized as scary guns because they are so oversized. So those of you with no real knowledge in this arena, that have ben commenting may want to get some “tough acting tinactin” for your tongue, after you take your foot out of your mouth.

    • RocketScientist

      I usually try to be polite on this threads, but when I’m called out specifically as you did, I feel justified in responding in kind. Just so there’s no confusion what I’m talking about, you said the following:

      “Now Rocket Scientist is posting a line of flagrant lies in this thread, which are proven by his claims of Hi-points violations extending back to 1988, which is shown to be false as Hi-point was first founded in 1992, four years later, so everything that individual has posted MUST be dismissed with extreme prejudice.”

      You are obviously of a substandard intellect, so I will attempt to use simple words and short sentences. The information contained in my post which you refer to as ‘flagrant lies’ was part of a QUOTATION. This means they were not my words, but those of someone else. If you had paid attention from 2nd grade through whatever grade you attended last before dropping out (3rd? 4th?), you would have been able to infer this from the fact that the statement was book-ended (that means sandwiched-between) two punctuation marks that are known as (oddly enough) QUOTATION MARKS. They look like this: ” . Kind of like 2 commas but up high instead of down low. The particular quotation was from the official finding of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The full text can be found here:


      (by the way, that weird underlined and colored text above is called a hyperlink. if you move the pointy arrow over it, and push down once on the button on your mousey thing, it magically takes you to another webpage)

      Every single bit of information I posted was taken from this document, so any ‘flagrant lies’ are not mine, but those of a panel of judges that have been appointed to the highest-level court in their state, specifically because of their honesty, prudence, and discerning nature. Also, it might be useful to note that in the quotation, it says that the plaintiff (that means the person who is suing the other person/entity) ALLEGED that the ATF had informed Beemiller [Hi-Point] of criminal use of their guns from 1988 on. To save you the trouble of looking it up, allege means “Claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case.” So when you said I was posting ‘flagrant lies’, what I was actually doing was quoting a panel of supreme court judges, who themselves were stating only that someone supposed this fact, without yet having proven it. And this would have been obvious to anyone with a mental acuity above that of a grapefruit.

      Lastly, your assertion that criminals only use guns that have been stolen is absolutely ridiculous. One of the parties mentioned in this lawsuit is a man named Bostick, who bought large amount of cheap guns, often times through straw-buyers to disguise his purchases, and then sold those guns (which were not stolen, but purchased illegally) to criminals. This is what is known as a ‘black market’. Often times items on a black market cost significantly more than their ‘white market’ counterparts, specifically because you are paying extra for an untraceable item, and the price must include the markup charged by all the middlemen involved. As such, it would seem likely that an item that is cheap to begin with would be even more desirable in a black market as the price increase would be less noticeable.

    • kelley

      NO YOUR WRONG it is not against the law in OHIO to sell a gun without an FFL license…. learn ohio law before you say stupid stuff

      • RocketScientist

        “NO YOUR WRONG it is not against the law in OHIO to sell a gun without an FFL license…. learn ohio law before you say stupid stuff”

        It is not against Ohio state law to privately transfer firearms (the so-called ‘gun show loophole’). However it is against FEDERAL law to sell firearms as part of a regular business without an FFL. State laws can be more strict (by prohibiting private transfers altogether like in some states) but cannot be more lenient. So in Ohio, it is legal to sell a gun here or there, turnover in your collection, getting rid of unused guns, etc. But if you do so as a regular business, even in Ohio, you are violating federal law. And if you think selling about 150 guns at a time does not constitute a regular business I think the BATFE would have a very different opinion.

      • RocketScientist

        And again from the actual findings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York:

        “Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 USC § 921 et seq.) requires licensed firearms dealers to keep records containing information about the identity of individuals who purchase firearms (see § 923 [g]; United States v Nelson, 221 F3d 1206, 1209, cert denied 531 US 951). At a minimum, the records must contain “the name, age, and place of residence” of any person who purchases a firearm from a licensed dealer (§ 922 [b] [5]; see Nelson, 221 F3d at 1209). Further, “the information required [by 18 USC § 922] is information about the identity of the actual buyer, who supplies the money and intends to possess the firearm, as opposed to that individual’s ‘straw [purchaser]’ or agent” (Nelson, 221 F3d at 1209 [emphasis added]). To that end, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, which must be completed when a licensed dealer transfers a firearm to anyone other than another licensee (see 27 CFR § 478.124 [a]; United States v Carney, 387 F3d 436, 442 n 3), specifically asks the purchaser whether he or she is “the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on th[e] form” (www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf; see Nelson, 221 F3d at 1208-1209). “A dealer violates the [Gun Control Act] if the dealer transfers a firearm based upon information in ATF Form 4473 that he [or she] knows or has reason to believe is false” (Shawano Gun & Loan, LLC v Hughes, 650 F3d 1070, 1073; see 18 USC § 922 [m]). Further, a licensed dealer may be criminally liable for aiding and abetting a gun purchaser’s making of false statements or representations in the dealer’s firearms transfer records (see Carney, 387 F3d at 441, 445-446; see generally § 2 [a]). Here, plaintiffs allege that Upshaw engaged in illegal straw purchases on behalf of Bostic with the knowledge and assistance of Brown, A FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER {emphasis added}. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that, on at least four different occasions, Brown sold guns to Bostic, a “convicted felon” who was prohibited from purchasing firearms (see 18 USC § 922 [d] [1]), via straw purchases to Upshaw. According to plaintiffs, Bostic selected and paid for the handguns while Upshaw filled out the required paperwork as the purchaser of record, circumstances that are suggestive of a prohibited straw purchase (see Carney, 387 F3d at 442; Nelson, 221 F3d at 1208). Brown allegedly sold at least 140 handguns to Bostic and/or Upshaw in this manner. In October 2000, Brown allegedly sold Bostic and/or Upshaw 87 handguns, including the gun used to shoot plaintiff, at a gun show in Ohio.”

      • W

        dayaaam rocket scientist.

        thats three slam dunks. 😀

  • The Brigadier

    Hi Point should file a frivolous lawsuit against the Buffalo man who brought the suit against him. They should also file it in Ohio. New York just finished number one as the most fascist state in America according to the number of tyrannical laws they have on the books controlling their resident’s lives. It appeared in one of the those ubiquitous lists on the web you have to maddeningly scroll through every state to get to number one.