The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 13, 2009, 03:46 AM   #1
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,974
Court limits gun suit in LA Jewish center attack

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/...nter_shootings


Quote:
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 ?
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 04:01 AM   #2
Kyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
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?
Kyo is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 05:55 AM   #3
BlindMansBluff
Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 95
how can you even justify suing a gun maker for a gun used in a murder?

please explain your logic?
__________________
Gabe Vega

I just started a blog about my experiences being a blind gun owner and a target shooter, check it out at http://theblindmansbluff.blogspot.com
BlindMansBluff is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 06:24 AM   #4
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,523
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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-...ues-gun-maker/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/g...79-chavez-shot (longer version)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/16/sniper.lawsuit/
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/...bushschoolyard (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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 06:46 AM   #5
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
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.)
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 12:19 PM   #6
TMUSCLE1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Posts: 174
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.
TMUSCLE1 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 01:06 PM   #7
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,974
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.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

Last edited by Hook686; May 13, 2009 at 01:11 PM.
Hook686 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 02:58 PM   #8
srt 10 jimbo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 955
Remember when the lady sued Mcdonalds for spilling her coffee on herself?
srt 10 jimbo is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 03:53 PM   #9
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,009
Moving to Law & Civil Rights.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 03:57 PM   #10
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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 ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 05:02 PM   #11
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 641
Hook686: Sarcasm is often missed when written. It was clear to me what you were expressing but I guess not for everyone.
vito is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 07:36 AM   #12
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
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.
RDak is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 01:16 PM   #13
apr1775
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 420
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.
__________________
Don't focus so much on who is driving the bus, but pay attention to what bus you're on and where it's going.
apr1775 is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 02:36 PM   #14
Kyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
i feel stupid. I didn't realize he was being sarcastic. stupid internet
Kyo is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 08:39 PM   #15
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,748
Here, in the land of the Free...

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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 07:00 AM   #16
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
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!!

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!

Last edited by RDak; May 15, 2009 at 07:56 AM.
RDak is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09567 seconds with 9 queries