|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 13, 2009, 03:46 AM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 2,090
|
Court limits gun suit in LA Jewish center attack
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/...nter_shootings
Quote:
__________________
Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides. |
|
May 13, 2009, 04:01 AM | #2 |
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? |
May 13, 2009, 05:55 AM | #3 |
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 |
May 13, 2009, 06:24 AM | #4 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
May 13, 2009, 06:46 AM | #5 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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.)
|
May 13, 2009, 12:19 PM | #6 |
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. |
May 13, 2009, 01:06 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 2,090
|
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. |
May 13, 2009, 02:58 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 955
|
Remember when the lady sued Mcdonalds for spilling her coffee on herself?
|
May 13, 2009, 03:53 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
|
Moving to Law & Civil Rights.
|
May 13, 2009, 03:57 PM | #10 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
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 ™ |
|
May 13, 2009, 05:02 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Location: IL
Posts: 853
|
Hook686: Sarcasm is often missed when written. It was clear to me what you were expressing but I guess not for everyone.
|
May 14, 2009, 07:36 AM | #12 |
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. |
May 14, 2009, 01:16 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 425
|
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. |
May 14, 2009, 02:36 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
|
i feel stupid. I didn't realize he was being sarcastic. stupid internet
|
May 14, 2009, 08:39 PM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,676
|
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. |
May 15, 2009, 07:00 AM | #16 |
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|