9th Circuit Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Gun Industry

[2dogs]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/160956.shtml

9th Circuit Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Gun Industry

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful-death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision expected to reignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products.
Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide, and President Bush has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.

The 2-1 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people at a Jewish day care center in a rampage in the Los Angeles area in 1999.

A federal judge in Los Angeles in 2001 had thrown out the case, filed by families of the victims against Georgia-based Glock Inc., China North Industries Corp., RSR Management Corp. and RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle Inc. The case was filed under California negligence and wrongful death statutes.

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

"I believe this is the first federal court of appeals decision to sustain a claim like this one," said Peter Nordberg, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.

Private groups, including National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, also have sued, saying guns "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities. That case was thrown out of federal court in July.

The gunman in the 1999 shootings, Buford Furrow, is serving life in prison without parole.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Once again California is at the forefront of illogical thinking leftists.

Buford Furrow, is serving life in prison without parole

Sooooooo, lunatics, listen up.................Don't even try this in TEXAS ! or Oklahoma for that matter, We ain't playin'

 

[HankB]

Isn't this the same 9th Circus Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? And aren't their decisions overturned more than any other court?

 

[foghornl]

You are right, HankB. The Ninth CIRCUS Court is THE most overturned court in the US.

 

[mantispid]

And isn't this the same 9th Circuit court that declared home-made machine guns legal?

They seem like they're suffering from multiple personality disorder.

 

[Cosmoline]

Was that ruling on the machine gun en banc or just a panel? There are some pretty conservative judges on the 9th. Klienfeld's one I've actually met. It's possible to get a three-judge panel that leans right, or at least center.

 

[Wildalaska]

Until I read the decsion in detail and analyze it in accordance with well settled principles of civil jurisprudence Im not gonna jump to any conclusions, thats a trick of the illogical gun banners...

And yes, here it is, there are circumstances where the manufacturer of a lawful product can be held liable...

WildreadfirstpostlaterAlaska

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Both rulings were by three judge panels. There are some good judges in that circuit, (Kozinski, who wrote the machine gun ruling, belongs on the Supreme court!) and some god awful ones. (Reinhart, who authored the Silveira ruling, is among the worst. The average is merely awful...

 

[Standing Wolf]

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy.

Yeah, and General Motors makes more cars than legal purchasers can buy, so there's a booming market for stolen cars.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

This is their argument? And courts, even the 9th circus, take it seriously? I would wait for the merits, but I am really wondering.....

 

[jimpeel]

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy.

So I guess that every manufacturer which sells their overstock merchandise at http://www.overstock.com is guilty of producing more products than legal purchasers could buy also. I have yet to see Glock selling anything there, though. The closest they come to selling a firearm there is holsters and lightbeam dry-fire kits.

 

[F4GIB]

There is a great analysis of this court bad decision by UCLA law professor (and Second Amendment scholar) Eugene Volokh at http://volokh.com/2003_11_16_volokh_archive.html#106938093722298885

 

[Waitone]

Does anyone know the names of the judges on the panel?

Not a surprising outcome considering the court.

 

[cuchulainn]

from the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/21/MNG4S380CH1.DTL

Friday, November 21, 2003

Court revives suit on gun marketing
Firms can be sued over weapons used in '99 shootings

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

A gun manufacturer can be held legally responsible for flooding the market with guns that end up in criminal hands and result in a deadly shooting,

a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a major but possibly short-lived victory for gun control advocates.

The 2-1 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the first such ruling by a federal appeals court, revived claims against makers and distributors of the guns used by white supremacist Buford Furrow, who wounded five children and workers at a Jewish center in August 1999 and later murdered a postman.

The suit accuses manufacturers of deliberately making more guns than the legitimate market would support and selling them through channels that would reach a "secondary market'' of private and under-the-table sales, scanty background checks and easy access to illegal buyers like Furrow.

Thursday's ruling could bolster San Francisco's appeal of a judge's decision in March to dismiss a suit by 12 California local governments, who seek damages from gunmakers for allegedly supplying an illegal gun market.

But such suits could run into a roadblock in Congress. Legislation to protect gun manufacturers from damage suits for harm caused by legally sold guns is nearing final passage and is supported by President Bush.

Thursday's ruling shows "precisely why Congress needs to immediately pass legislation that would block this kind of lawsuit that seeks to blame manufacturers for the actions of criminals,'' said Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry group.

Gun control supporters said the ruling should rebut claims that legislation is needed to protect the industry from frivolous suits.

"Today's decision shows that these cases are anything but frivolous,'' said Blaine Rummell, spokesman for the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, which was co-counsel for the victims in the case. "It would be a huge mistake to deprive (victims) of their day in court to grant a special-interest sop to the gun lobby.''

The ruling, which could be appealed, returns the case to a Los Angeles federal court for further pretrial proceedings.

Furrow, a mentally disturbed man from Washington state with a criminal record and neo-Nazi affiliations, took an arsenal of guns into the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills (Los Angeles County) and opened fire, wounding three children, a teenager and an adult. An hour later, he fatally shot Filipino American postman Joseph Ileto, 39, who was delivering mail in Chatsworth.

Furrow pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life in prison. The lawsuit was filed by Ileto's widow, Lilian, three of the wounded youths and another child at the center. Defendants included Glock Inc., maker of the 9mm handgun used to shoot Ileto; RSR Management Corp., distributor of that gun; and North Industries Corp., maker of the 9mm rifle used in the Jewish center shootings.

A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed the suit last year, saying suits against manufacturers of legally sold, properly operating guns were barred by a 1984 California law. That law, which was repealed last year, was cited by the California Supreme Court in 2001 when it rejected damage claims against the maker of two rapid-fire pistols used to kill eight people in a San Francisco high-rise in 1993.

But the appeals court majority Thursday said the state law prohibited only claims that certain types of guns were inherently unsafe, such as the assault weapons in the San Francisco massacre at 101 California St., and did not bar suits over negligent gun sales.

The Glock pistol that killed Ileto was initially sold to a police department in Cosmopolis, Wash., but was quickly traded to a local gun dealer, then sold to an unlicensed trader, who sold it to Furrow at a gun show, the suit said. It said Glock sold numerous guns to police that were unsafe for civilians, encouraged early trade-ins and ignored information from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms about high-risk distribution channels.

If those allegations are true, said Judge Richard Paez in Thursday's ruling, "it is reasonably foreseeable that this negligent behavior and distribution strategy will result in guns getting into the hands of people like Furrow who are forbidden by federal and state law from purchasing a weapon.'' Dissenting Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall said the suit was basically the same as the case dismissed by California's high court in 2001 -- a claim that gun manufacturers sold a dangerous but legal product that wound up in criminal hands.

"The debate over the extent to which gun manufacturers should be held liable to victims of gun violence belongs in the democratic process'' and not in the courts, she said.

Glock's attorney, Christopher Renzulli, agreed with Hall and predicted the company would prevail. "How can Glock monitor a firearm after it's in the hands of law enforcement?'' he asked.

E-mail Bob Egelko at [email protected]

 

[Bill Hook]

9th Appeals reinstates gun liability suit

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAU61BA9ND.html

 

[jimpeel]

A gun manufacturer can be held legally responsible for flooding the market with guns that end up in criminal hands and result in a deadly shooting,

How can they be "flooding the market" if they are selling every firearm they manufacture? If they were "flooding the market" they would have a surplus of firearms they couldn't sell sitting on their shelves.

What these people are saying is that firearms manufacturers should only manufacture the exact number of firearms they have orders for that have already been sold to the consumer. Once they get the order, they can then manufacturer one firearm for one point of sale transaction and ship that firearm to the distributor. There should be no stocking distributors allowed to exist -- just catalogue sales facilities.

 

[Bill Hook]

Duplicate.

 

[Langenator]

It said Glock sold numerous guns to police that were unsafe for civilians... and ignored information...about high-risk distribution channels.

So now Glock pistols are unsafe for civilians? Oh wait, I forgot, to the 9th Circus all guns are unsafe for civilians...

And apparently, they're not safe for sale to the police, either, since selling them to the cops is a "high-risk distrubution channel."

The logic (of lack thereof) here is extremely bad, even for the 9th Circuit. If anyone in the private sector turned in work this shoddy (at least, outside of the media world), they'd be fired.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Here's the original: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50899

Closing this duplicate.

 

[longeyes]

Health & Safety - the Fifth and Sixth Horsemen

Bankrupting gunmakers, or wiping out their distribution channels, is
the 9CC's way of circumventing the 2A. It is analogous to environmentalists
using pollution laws to drive shooting ranges out of business.

 

[Preacherman]

Duplicate threads merged.

 

[Cosmoline]

Unless the plaintiffs can show that Glock knowlingly distributed to THE CRIMINAL in this case, I think they're reached way beyond any possible proximate cause. They're also well beyond any forseeability. Of course the plaintiffs have no such evidence, but they do have some wild-eyed theories about distribution chains that they want to toss in front of an anti-gun jury. It's an absurd ruling. Another example of the common law being used as legislation by judicial fiat. Many of these judges were taught in law school that their role should not be to judge cases but to make society "better." Nothing is worse than combining the power of a jurist with the arrogance of some "uplifting" philosophy.

 

[Langenator]

Cosmo-

You're right. If they were to sue the guy who actually sold the gun to the shooter, they might be able to actually make some kind of case. But apparently said seller was just a private citizen, so he fails the activist lawyers two tests of a good lawsuit: 1) No deep pockets to get a huge settlement or 2) no big "social betterment" to cry about.

By my count, RSR is 4 steps removed from the shooter. That's one hell of a stretch.

All the more reason why we need to put more effort into getting good judges put on the bench.

 

[Waitone]

I just looked up the justices involved in the opinion.

Cynthia Holcomb Hall--dissent
Sidney R. Thomas
Richard A. Paez--opinion

I was wanting to see Reinhardt and Kosinski but it was not to be.

 

[mountainclmbr]

OK, I'll Bite. Is the court is also agreeing to be personally liable for people who can no longer protect themselves??? Up to being sentenced for the actual crime??? Seems to be what they are saying. OK 9th Circus, you are on the other side of the see saw....If I am in your jurisdiction, I can't defend myself.....you should spend the time (or worse) if I am harmed. If the glove fits you must convict!