View Single Post
Old August 6, 2012, 05:41 PM   #34
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 366
The main point here, IMO, is that this lawsuit could end up having the effect of making a whole class of handguns unavailable to California shooters because they've been made too risky from a liability standpoint, for manufacturers to sell them in California.

I'm not even sure the liability stops there. Someone purchases a Walther PPS in some other state but that gun is used to injure someone in California... Walther is exposed to the same kind of lawsuit. This same type of lawsuit could be applied to any DA revolver, and any number of guns.

The country needed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precisely because of the stupidity that these three judges displayed by allowing the suit to go forward.

The gun functioned within it's design parameters. It did not malfunction. Furthermore, the injury to the plaintiff came about as the result of a crime (or several), - isn't it child endangerment or something?

It makes as much sense as suing the car manufacturer because they didn't make their seats in such a way that 3 year olds couldn't shoot through them.
Luger_carbine is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04469 seconds with 7 queries