U.S. court OKs wrongful death suit vs gunmaker

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20304759.htm

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. Appeals court on Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against Glock Inc. and gun sellers, ruling they could be charged with negligence for using a distribution scheme that made it likely their guns would end up in the hands of illegal buyers.

The ruling, by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reverses a lower court ruling that had dismissed a lawsuit by family members injured and killed in a high-profile shooting spree at a Jewish center in Southern California four years ago.

In 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow armed himself with an arsenal of guns, walked into a Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, California, and shot and injured three young children, a teenager, and an adult worker. While fleeing the scene, he shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto.

The relatives of some of those victims filed a lawsuit charging gunmakers used negligent marketing strategies that caused their guns to end up in the hands of the wrong people.

Specifically, the suit charged that the gunmakers intentionally produced more guns than the market demanded, with the intent of selling the surplus on the black market.

more

[Lefty48197]

1. I thought the Republicans were passing laws that shielded gun makers

from civil lawsuits? Gosh, this one is surely going to piss of the right wingers in the National Republican Association.

[madddog]

7. the bill to which you refer

would not prohibit civil suits against dealers who sell guns they know will be used criminally...but you probably already know that.

If you are willing to allow the same kind of lawsuit against the manufacturer of every other product on the planet, fine.

We don't due that now, though. For example, if I beat someone to death with a Louisville Slugger, the company is immune from lawsuits under current law.

Name another industry that you would be allowed to sue the manufacturer for the criminal misuse of their product.

[coralrf]

10. That is not what the suit is about...

but you probably already know that.

This suit concerns the issue of gun production that is "intended" to allow sale above what can be controlled. No one is saying that Glock wants their guns in criminal hands but that Glock does not care if they in fact get there as long as they get their money.

This suit is not about holding a gun maker responsible for the criminal use of their product but to hold a gun maker responsible for seeking profits via means that insure that guns will be available to those that are forbidden to have them.

But you probably already knew that.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

16. Gosh, I think it pissed off some of them here as well!

:evilgrin:

[bluestateguy]

2. Suing gun manufacturers

I oppose legislation giving immunity to the gun industry..or ANY industry. Still, the plantiffs should have to prove that the gun co. marketed their product in a way that targeted criminal buyers. I oppose the idea of suing a gun manufacturer simply because someone got shot.

[coralrf]

11. Yes and no..

Yes they will have to prove that Glock used tactics that they had reason to belive might make guns easier for criminals to get. If that cannot be proved then the case is gone.

No this case is not about someone getting shot. It is about a maniac shooting a bunch of folks. A maniac that was not supposed to have a gun and therefore used illicit means to get one. The case involves Glock abetting the actions of illegal gun sales by providing more weapons than legal outlets can handle thus ensuring overflow into illegal markets.

The point here is not that Gun Dealers should automatically be liable for the use of their products but that they should NOT be automatically be immune to charges of wrong doing. This case is not about holding Glock responsible for the use of their products but that is how every gun nut will spin it.

[NickB79]

3. 9th Circuit Court

Isn't that the most overturned court in the US? That doesn't help the plaintiffs here.

[BadGimp]

8. Actually NO The 9th Circut IS NOT the most overturned court

http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives/jul2002/msg00519.html

This link will take you to an article about recent comments by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' on the execution of minors.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/3635328p-4661215c.html

The article also includes comments by the Justice relevant to George
Cunningham's statement below:

At 11:11 PM 6/26/2002 -0400, George Cunningham wrote:

The 9th Circuit Court is the most overturned Circuit Court in the country.

From the Bee:

Stevens also commented on the 9th Circuit's batting average in the Supreme Court in the past term. By reputation the most liberal of the nation's 12 regional circuits, the 9th Circuit, with a 78 percent reversal rate in the recent term, fared better than seven of the other circuit courts. Its reversal rate has been as high as 96 percent in some recent terms.

Stevens said such statistics are irrelevant, given the number of opinions each circuit court turns out -- 4,339 last year in the 9th Circuit, according to figures supplied by that court's administrative office.

"You really can't just look at those (cases) that happened to be granted (accepted for Supreme Court review)," he said.

******
So as a matter of fact, George Cunningham is incorrect--the 9th Circuit is not currently the most overturned court. But more importantly, according to Justice Stevens, this bit of folklore implicitly distorts the meaning of Supreme Court review and reversal. In other words, the fact that the Supreme Court selected cases from the 9th Circuit to consider (perhaps because the Court's majority wanted to make certain points), tells you nothing about the quality of the 9th Circuit's opinions.

George Sheridan
.......................................................

THIS SO CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES HOW THE VICTORIES OFTEN GO TO THOSE THAT CONTROL THE DEBATE.

BadGimp

Speak the truth and all nature and all spirits help you with unexpected furtherance. Speak the truth, and all things alive or brute are vouchers, and the very roots of the grass underground there, do seem to stir and move bear you witness. .... and the worlds, time, space, eternity, do seem to break out into joy.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

[madddog]

4. great...

as long as we can sue GM, and Anheuser Busch when some drunk gets lickered up (a southern expression hehehe) and kills a family of 5;

as long as we can sue Boeing because a bunch of terrorists crashed one of their planes into the twin towers;

as long as we can sue....well you get the point.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Read the article n/t

[GregW]

9. I did ... and I fail to see how Glock is responsible

From the article:

Under terms that encouraged frequent trade-ins, the police were not required to pay for the new guns until the gun dealer had sold the former guns.

That gun dealer would then resell these police guns to a gun collector who was unlicensed and therefore did not have to get background checks from buyers.

So, in reality the terms to require resale before payment was not the issue, the resale of the guns from a dealer to an unlicensed collector was. Explain exactly how Glock is supposed to prevent the resale to an unlicensed collector?

[coralrf]

12. That is not what this case is about...

that is the spin that is put on it hence the word "police" used all over it.

[madddog]

13. no dealer

can legally sell a gun to anyone without the usual BATF paperwork, as far as I know. A private individual can, but a dealer can't. The only "collector" license I've ever heard of is a Curio and Relics license...which is NOT the same as an FFL. I have a C&R license, but I can only buy guns that are on the C&R list, typically stuff that's older than 50 years, military surplus kinda stuff, and old West style sfuff; I can't buy anything that requires an FFL...I have to have it shipped to, or buy directly from a licensed dealer or FFL holder. I can only determine that an "unlicensed collector" is just a regular guy, in which case he has to do the paperwork if he buys from a dealer, just like I would have to.

I am NOT an FFL, so I don't know Federal regulations that don't pertain to me...but I think something is not worded right in the part you quoted, or the article is just plain wrong.

I guess keeping the police in up to date, new equipment isn't a good business practice these days.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. One giant step for mankind... Well, Americans anyway.

Good news from my POV.

[opihimoimoi]

15. Some smart Suit will use this to sue the makers of those RPGs

that is bringing about the unneccessary death and injuries to innocent victims. And, in this crazy world, he/she would have a good chance to WIN.

[Superfly]

14. What?!?

Illegal buyers - buyers that the government has stated are not eligible to purchase firearms, therefore there are laws on the books to keep them from obtaining firearms.

So, if they were illegal buyers, why the fuck didn't the 20,000 gun laws and the NICS system we already have stop them from purchasing a firearm?

Oh, that's right, the government doesn't really enforce them and NICS works, marginally at best! Silly me!