.jpg)
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling and dismissed charges against gun manufacturer Glock Inc, citing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Glock had been sued by victims of a 1999 shooting in the San Fernando Valley by a "mentally disturbed man with neo-Nazi affiliations."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim that Glock is responsible for the criminal use of their product because "the manufacturers deliberately made more guns than the legitimate market could support and sold them through channels that would reach a "secondary market" of private and under-the-table transactions."
This preposterous claim is akin to suing Anheuser-Busch for intentionally manufacturing beer that people would consume after they were already drunk and then holding the beer company responsible for drunk driving deaths. The private transactions referred to are sales between private citizens, a perfectly legal action. There is no such thing as an "under-the-table" transaction. So, what these lawyers are really trying to do is to sue Glock for manufacturing a legal product for legal private sales while holding them responsible for the actions of criminals.
The lawsuit refers to guns being sold through "high-risk distribution channels," which is explained as being "from a police department in Washington state through several owners to an unlicensed trader." So, Glock manufactured a pistol that was sold to a police department and are somehow responsible for it winding up in the hands of a criminal years down the road?
When you consider that "unlicensed trader" really just means a private citizen, you see one of the goals of the gun grabbers, which is to ban all private sales of firearms.
Any way you look at it, this was nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit by victims of tragedy who are being manipulated by greedy lawyers and the gun ban movement, both hoping to capitalize on their loss for their own purposes. This is exactly the type of situation the PLCAA was designed to prevent, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the correct decision.
Comments
"This preposterous claim is akin to suing Anheuser-Busch for intentionally manufacturing beer that people would consume after they were already drunk and then holding the beer company responsible for drunk driving deaths."
Do, please, avoid giving "them" ideas.
"They" already try to hold the bar owner liable, you know.
It's a good ruling and it is a shame that it required an act of Congress to support it.
As you say, allowing this would have been akin to allowing suits against Busch for misuse of beer, or Ford for the misuse of automobiles, Ace Hardware when someone murders using a hammer, and a host of other absolutely silly claims.
Actually, it would have been worse. None of those dangerous products require the seller to ensure that the buyer is law-abiding and legally allowed to purchase those other products.
These types of lawsuits will continue as long as they cost the plaintiff nothing if they can find a lawyer with time on his hands willing to take the case. Make whoever loses the case pay the opposing sides legal fees and such suits will be eliminated. As it stands now, only the plaintiff can recover legal fees if the case is won and frivolous lawsuits are almost impossible to prove as frivolous.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Ahh too bad liberal wankos but it looks like another vulture has been plucked and another shark harpooned I hope you greedy trial lawyers ride back to your plush estate in you 3 mpg limo and soak your heads in your olympic size pools
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!