U.S. Court Allows Lawsuit Against Gun Maker

[Dali Llama]

U.S. Court Allows Lawsuit Against Gun Maker
Fri May 28, 6:47 PM ET  

 
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The chief Western U.S. federal appeals court stood by its decision on Friday allowing a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed against a gun manufacturer.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to have a larger en banc panel of judges reconsider its 2 to 1 November ruling that allowed a lawsuit against Glock Inc. and gun sellers. The suit alleges negligence for using a distribution scheme that made it likely their guns would end up in the hands of illegal buyers.

The case stems from the murder of a postal worker, Joseph Ileto, who was shot by a white supremacist. The gunman also shot and injured three young children, a teenager, and an adult worker at a Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, California during a rampage in 1999.

Relatives of victims filed a lawsuit charging gun makers used negligent marketing strategies that caused their guns to end up in the hands of the wrong people.

A majority of the 9th circuit voted against rehearing the case, although eight judges dissented. The court normally has 26 judges but it does not announce the number who form a majority in a given opinion.

"The potential impact of the panel's decision is staggering," Consuelo Callahan wrote for the dissenting judges. "Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product."

"Thus General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile," she wrote.

"The plaintiff would allege that General Motors knew that cars that can greatly exceed the legal speed limit are dangerous, and through advertising and by offering discounts, increased the attractiveness of the car and the number of Corvettes on the road and this increased the likelihood that a juvenile would steal a Corvette and operate it in an injurious manner."

Some gun control advocates hailed the majority's decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed.

"Today's decision is a victory for the victims of this terrible crime, and a powerful rebuke to those who consider 'frivolous' efforts to hold the gun industry accountable for reckless actions," the director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, Joshua Horwitz, said in a statement.

[Mikey]

Dali - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kalifornika is the most blatantly liberal circuit court in the land and many of thier decisions have already been overruled.  Truth is, that issue is being reviewed by the Supreme Court or is on their blotter for review and will be overturned.  Ya just gotta figger that somewhere, someone is gonna go overboard on the liberal end of things and who else but kalifornikans and the 9th Circuit Court would reduce this issue to the lowest common denominator.  Just my 2 cents worth - Mikey.

[Dali Llama]

that issue is being reviewed by the Supreme Court or is on their blotter for review and will be overturned.

Dali Llama say he certainly hope Mikey be correct, as there be many far-ranging implications of this decision, more than most here seem to realize. :cry:

[dukkillr]

Mikey is right.  This is an issue that has fallen all over the map in the various appellate jurisdictions.  Ultimately one of two things will have to happen: 1)congress passes an indemnification bill like the one that failed this year (and has failed in the past) or 2)the supreme court hears the case.  If they hear the case it's my opinion that they would rule there is no causational link for holding the gun companies guilty, but that's just an educated guess based on their past decisions.  Also note that several of the supreme court justices are old enough to retire.  Changing Rhenquist or even O'Connor (both rumored to be considering retirement) out for someone more liberal could start an series of legal proceedings similar to those that tobacco is still dealing with.  The indemnity bill doesn't get the support that it needs from sportsman because it doesn't have the flashy appeal of other, more obvious, second ammendment issues but it may be even more important.

[papajohn428]

The fact that this type of lawsuit is even entertained as valid is a sickening reflection on what an out-of-control legal system has done to our society.  Whatever happened to "Personal Responsibility"?  Holding a gunmaker responsible for the acts of a deranged man is akin to arresting a dog breeder because a coyote raided the chicken coop in another state!

If I throw a Molotov Cocktail into a nightclub and kill a hundred people, are you going to sue Amoco?  

That mournful sound you hear is the funeral dirge for common sense.

PJ

[Shorty]

:? I forget which court this was, but recently it was ruled that a cell-phone company was not liable for a traffic accident that was caused by a driver using their product.  
So, why would a firearms manufacturer be liable for a criminal using their product?  SIMPLE, "liberals" use cell-phones, "conservatives" use guns! :roll:  And the courts/ judges are impartial  :roll:

[Dali Llama]

[quote="Shorty]why would a firearms manufacturer be liable for a criminal using their product?  SIMPLE, "liberals" use cell-phones, "conservatives" use guns!   [/quote]Shorty make excellent point, say Dali Llama. :cry:

[dukkillr]

it's important to remember that several appelate jurisdictions have taken up the same question and found the gun makers not liable, including the second circuit.  unfortunately you can never tell what will come out of the 9th circus.  hopefully the supreme court will resolve this issue eventually.

[Dali Llama]

hopefully the supreme court will resolve this issue eventually.

Dali Llama say he hope dukkillr be correct.