PDA

View Full Version : Court limits gun suit in LA Jewish center attack


Hook686
May 13, 2009, 03:46 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_re_us/us_jewish_center_shootings


Court limits gun suit in LA Jewish center attack

Los Angeles – Gunmaker Not Liable For Jewish Center Rampage .Tue May 12, 10:20 pm ET

PASADENA, Calif. – A federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit against gun maker Glock Inc. and a Seattle gun dealer stemming from a white supremacist's 1999 shooting rampage at a Los Angeles-area Jewish center and the murder of a postal carrier.

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' panel ruled Monday that a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products was constitutional.

On Aug. 10, 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow of Olympia, Wash., wounded three little children, a teenager and an adult at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. He later killed letter carrier Joseph S. Ileto. Authorities said he was carrying at least seven firearms, which he possessed illegally.


....

The 9th Circuit in California ruled in support of shielding the gunmakers ... can you believe this ?

Kyo
May 13, 2009, 04:01 AM
yea i believe it. And Im a jew. You gonna sue trojan for the fact that your wife isn't knocked up? You gonna sue Honda for a car that works?
Its not who made the tool its who uses it. That idiot needs to die. Glock doesn't need a lawsuit cause of some crazy ass. Can you imagine if the court ruled that they can get sued? We wouldn't have guns anymore cause all the makers would all go broke from lawsuits because there are MANY victims that would sue them for making their guns work.
What kind of question is that?

BlindMansBluff
May 13, 2009, 05:55 AM
how can you even justify suing a gun maker for a gun used in a murder?

please explain your logic?

Double Naught Spy
May 13, 2009, 06:24 AM
yea i believe it. And Im a jew. You gonna sue trojan for the fact that your wife isn't knocked up? You gonna sue Honda for a car that works?

how can you even justify suing a gun maker for a gun used in a murder?

please explain your logic?

While I find Hook686's statement of surprise to be naive (as if all courts are fully of idiots and this one made the right call), gunmakers have been sued for guns that worked properly.

Here are some examples of where gunmakers were sold for properly functioning firearms...
http://overlawyered.com/2008/07/cop-shot-by-3-year-old-sues-gun-maker/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-lawsuit-alleges-2089579-chavez-shot (longer version)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/16/sniper.lawsuit/
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2000/may/10/gun-maker-grandfather-dropped-school-shooting-suit/?previousfeatures/ambushschoolyard (attempted and dropped)
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/feb/27/local/me-23615

These are just a few examples of where the gunmakers are attempted to be held liable for the actions taken with their properly working firearms.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 13, 2009, 06:46 AM
Well, the real issue was whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was constitutional. If it was, then there was no way this case could win since it was specifically cited in Congressional testimony as one of the reasons the PLCA was passed in the first place (Buford Furrow had purchased a police surplus Glock which he used in the shooting. The victims sued Glock, instead of all the other people in that long chain of ownership.)

TMUSCLE1
May 13, 2009, 12:19 PM
I thought Hook's question was sarcastic gentlemen. He probably thinks that he can't believe that a court supported a firearm maker.

If I'm wrong then I apologize.

Hook686
May 13, 2009, 01:06 PM
I certainly understand the rationalizations folks are making. However, California is where in the 1970's a F-86 vintage fighter plane flying at an air show in Sacramento took off and ended up crashing into a Ferrell's Ice Cream Parlor. Shell, the oil company, was sued since they sold gasoline to the pilot and it was the fuel being used as the plane was taking off.

With lawyers I've found it does not need to 'make sense' ... no logic is needed.

Yes I was 'tongue in cheek' regarding the 9th circuit, of all courts, upholding a gun manufacturer. I have found the 9th to be very liberal in lts rulings and gun controls are very liberal opinions here in California.

srt 10 jimbo
May 13, 2009, 02:58 PM
Remember when the lady sued Mcdonalds for spilling her coffee on herself?:D

Bud Helms
May 13, 2009, 03:53 PM
Moving to Law & Civil Rights.

Wildalaska
May 13, 2009, 03:57 PM
The 9th Circuit in California ruled in support of shielding the gunmakers ... can you believe this ?

The issue here was constitutionality.

Considering their recent ruling I think the 9th Circuit is reasonably competant in applying precedent. That one may not like their opinions politically is a separate issue.

WildsonicetobebacktoaplacewherefolksdontapologizeforeverythingAlaska ™

vito
May 13, 2009, 05:02 PM
Hook686: Sarcasm is often missed when written. It was clear to me what you were expressing but I guess not for everyone.

RDak
May 14, 2009, 07:36 AM
Yeah, Hook was being sarcastic.

Wildalaska is correct.

I am so happy with how the 9th Circuit has ruled lately. I fell off of my chair and had the wife read the Nordyke, supra, summary back to me because I hit my head and was dizzy. :D

apr1775
May 14, 2009, 01:16 PM
I recently heard a commentary on how the 9th has suddenly gone pro-gun and what could be their reason for doing so. What do they know that we don't?

Most suits against gun makers were based on the premise that they were making and marketing gun that would wind up in the hands of criminals. The Glock pistol in question was clearly marketed to law enforcement.

So if a member of you family is ever beat to death by a killer with a cheap baseball bat, go after the bat maker for damages. :confused:

Kyo
May 14, 2009, 02:36 PM
i feel stupid. I didn't realize he was being sarcastic. stupid internet :rolleyes:

44 AMP
May 14, 2009, 08:39 PM
With (I believe) the highest per capita ratio of lawyers in the world, one can be sued for anything. Long Gone are the days when a Judge could rule "your client is an idiot, case dismissed". Everyone gets their day in court, if they can afford it.

The general attitude that "we're victims and somebody is going to pay" disgusts me.

This is, however the world we have created. Don't focus on those actually responsible, sue the ones most likely to have the deepest pockets!:barf:

It is ironic that the 9th Circuit Court, long noted for rulings that defy conventional common sense has lately been doing the opposite, at least on issues concerning guns.

RDak
May 15, 2009, 07:00 AM
I don't know apr1775.

All I do know is the 9th Circuit is now following precedent in gun cases.

Some one pinch me. I must be dreaming!! :D

In defense of the 9th Circuit (did I just say that??!!), Heller just came out last year. So they haven't had much time to follow that decision IMHO.

Why did the 9th Circuit follow Heller so closely and praise the reasoning in Heller so dramatically? I have no idea apr1775. But I'm HAPPY right now!