NRA-ILA: SF Judge Dismisses Gun Suit per Lawful Commerce Act

[Connecticut Yankee]

On Monday, Federal District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins used the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” as the basis for dismissal of a reckless “public-nuisance” lawsuit against firearm manufacturer Glock and distributor RSR. In doing so, Judge Collins became the first judge in the country to use the new law to counter the anti-gun lobby’s shameless attempts to hold the lawful firearm industry responsible for the acts of criminals.

The suit sought to blame Glock and RSR for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow’s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted, but did nothing illegal, and RSR never owned, sold, or possessed the firearm.

“It is fitting that this case was the first ever dismissed based on the ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’ because the facts made this case the poster child for passage of common sense legal reform,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2035

 

[StopTheGrays]

and RSR never owned, sold, or possessed the firearm.

Then how could they get named in the suit? If you can just add a bunch of names to the even if they were not involved, why stop at RSR? I would add Microsoft, Wal-mart, Ford, Sony, and Oprah. Make some real cha-ching... /sarcasm


Good news on the result of the lawsuit. I hope it is the first in a long line of court victories for our side.

 

[publius]

Score one for the commerce clause.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Then how could they get named in the suit? If you can just add a bunch of names to the even if they were not involved, why stop at RSR?

NEVER underestimate the capacity of attorneys for stupidity.

A number of years ago I used to work for a company that designed and specified roofing repairs for large commercial clients. One day we got a call from the owners of a large shopping mall. Seems a small, local roofer had been patching a leak with a product that is applied with a torch (to melt it down), and he managed to set the roof on fire. By the time it was out, a large area had been damaged. After the fire, they hired us to set up a re-roofing program to repair the fire damege.

Some time after the repairs had been completed, we were astonished to receive a notice that we were defendants in a lawsuit. Seems one of the volunteer foremen had showed up drunk, slipped off a ladder while fighting the fire, and injured himself. The company I worked for was named in the suit as having "negligently" prepared specifications for the repairs that caused the fire, and thus the poor fireman's injuries. The fireman's attorney was informed that we were not invlolved at the site until several weeks after the fire and his client's injuries, but he declined to remove us from the claim. Irrespective of the fact that our repairs were not specified or carried out for at least three months AFTER the alleged injury to the alleged fireman.

That's bad enough, but it gets worse. My company's insurance company wanted to settle out of court rather than fight it, because they though it would cost them less. (Of course, then our premiums would have gone sky-high for the next several years, based on our "loss history.") My boss actually had to hire an attorney to sue the insurance company to force them to defend what was obviously a patently falacious claim.