U.S. Court Allows Lawsuit Against Gun Maker

[goalie]

Wildalaska,

Since nobody is claiming that Glock sold the man a firearm illegally and nobody is claiming that Glock sold a dangerously defective firearm, could you please explain just what legal principle the lawsuit could be based on?

 

[The_Antibubba]

Time for Celebration!

This is Good News! No, really. This nonsense about suing a manufacturer because: a) It functioned exactly as it was designed to, and b) because after it left the retailer it got into the wrong hands is about the most asinine, boneheaded proposition anyone has ever proposed, and since too few of our Congresscritters were willing to take a stand on it, the Courts will.

And the Ninth Circuit Court is famous, or infamous, for making decisions at the outer edges of jurisprudence. The only question is whether or not the SCOTUS will agree to hear the case. They've been reluctant to hear 2nd Amendment cases, overall, but this isn't really a 2A case-it's something very different. And since a standing judgement against a manufacturer of firearms could result in a suit against any other product maker ("Mr. X had a recorded history of DWI, but Ford Motor Company still enabled him to purchase a vehicle..."), it will have to be dealt with.

Boy, less than two weeks of law school, and I've learned so much already!
-------------------

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sits in San Francisco, California, and the decisions it makes affect every citizen in the country. That's why I keep telling you: If you love your rights, and you hate to see them disappear, moving away from California won't help. The 9th Circuit Affects Texas and Alaska and Wyoming and every other State in the Union, and all you're doing is fooling yourself by saying, "Well, it's not in my front yard any more."

As goes California, so goes the nation.

 

[Wildalaska]

OK Iread the decsion denying a rehearing en banc...and will comment as follows (THIS IS AN ANALYSIS WITH CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS SINCE I HAVENT READ EVERYTHING).

The original dismissal was based on what is called a 12b6 (if my memery serves me coorect) motion....on such a motion, done BEFORE any discovery is done, all facts plead by the plaintiff are DEEMED true.

The District Court found that EVEN if ALL FACTS by the plaintitiff are DEEMED TRUE, the lawsuit would fail as a matter of law.

In reversing this decision, the Circuit found that when the Court deems all the facts as true, their view of California Law would in fact impose liability. Keep in mind that this is an appellayte Federal Court intrepeting CALIFORNIA law.

The main complaint of the dissenter in the denial of rehearing was that the Circuit should have certified the issue of what is California law to the California Supreme Court.

Keep in mind that grants of motions to dismiss under 12b6 are constantly and frequently overturned by appellate Courts.

Thisa decsion of the 9th Circuit is pretty meaningless as to precednt except in the 9th Circuit IMHO...

Still cant say the decision is right tr wrong unless I study California tort law, which I aint gonna do.

WildthinkbeforeyourantAlaska