Al Norris wrote:It should come as no surprise that a CA appellate court decided the ex-cop could sue, based upon the lack of safety on a Glock... A gun that can't be purchased in CA, unless you are LE.
A boat load of Glock models are still on the approved list for California. They are not "Unsafe Handguns" as defined in CPC 31910...it even has a safety as defined in CPC 31910(b)(1) otherwise they could not be sold in Cali.
The Plantiff appears to have violated CPC 25100(a) meeting the elements of (1), (2), and (3) a FELONY. He does not appear to meet the elements under (b) which is a misdemeanor. Because of his status of LEO it appears he was given a pass on being charged....that part is only conjecture but anyone reading up on this would likely draw a similar conclusion.
The child not being in a child seat violates CVC 27360.
Glock via their retained law firm successfully beat the plaintiff Renzulli Law Firm
and even won the first appeal.
In this case I think Glock will fight again. The part I want the forms lawyers to expand upon is the fact that the appellate judge used the words "faulty design" since the gun is not "unsafe" as defined in California statue.
P.S. Glock was not the only defendant in the initial case.
There is a thread running on another forum (THR) about this.