Posted on 08/30/2009 12:10:48 PM PDT by Ja7430
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline)-The family of an Illinois boy who was fatally shot by his friend have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a federal law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits.
The family of Joshua Adames want the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 overturned, a move that would allow them to sue a gun manufacturer over the 13-year-old boy's accidental death.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalnewsline.com ...
Did not render the gun safe?
Bullshit. The 92FS has a “loaded chamber” indicator on the top, right-hand side of the slide.
The kid’s daddy should be sued, not Beretta.
If the kid had run out in front of a car would they sue Chevrolet?
I'm surprised my arc welder didn't have a similar warning.
That is like suing Boeing because one of their aircraft crashed into one of the twin towers.
That’s our rule, “It’s always loaded”
Lawyers. Damn them to hell.
banglist *PING*
A lawsuit was filed against Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan, among other defendants, claiming that the gun maker failed to warn users that simply removing the clip did not render the gun safe.
In an amicus before the Illinois Supreme Court, the Pacific Legal Foundation argued that neither the Cook County Sheriff’s Department nor Baretta should be held liable for the accidental death that was caused by unforeseeable conduct.
The lawsuit was ultimately rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court in March. The state high court ruled that because the trigger was intentionally pulled, an exemption in the 2005 federal law did not apply to the case.
Now, the Adames petition to the U.S. Supreme Court says states should be free to create their own laws when the authority has not been given to Congress.
“This case raises core issues of federalism and statutory construction that have confounded the lower courts, and require clarification from this Court: Does the Tenth Amendment permit Congress to dictate which branch of state government may authorize liability against a particular industry so long as the federal enactment does not ‘commandeer’ state officials?” the petition for review says.
Make that “some lawyers”
Sheesh
“...A lawsuit...claiming that the gun maker failed to warn
users that simply removing the clip did not render the gun safe...”
-
As though a 13 year old using the weapon
without permission or supervision from his father
would have read or headed any such warnings...
rule #2
keep your firearms locked up away from your children.
shshsh... lose lips bring new classes of lawsuits...
If God could sue, he would sue attorneys for these labels that screwed up his creative directive for weeding out idiots.
The grief of the parents is understandable, but their anger is mis-directed.
I think they should sue the movie makers for the repeatedly showing falsley that dropping the clip renders a gun useless.
~~~
From the Beretta 92FS Technical Specifications:
If Swan had driven himself and Adames in a perfectly-functioning auto off a cliff at 80 MPH -- because he ignored a 25 MPH curve warning -- would Adames' family be justified in suing the car manufacturer (or the road builder)?
No court should even consider hearing this case.
Deputy Swan is the one at fault here on many levels in my opinion.
First, if you are going to have a weapon in your home you teach your children it is not a toy. How do you do that? Take them out and show them what a weapon will do. Teach them how to shoot it, what happens to a target when you do. It’s all about respect. You teach them not to put their hands on a burner on the stove, not to play with knives, matches, run out in the street, etc. Real guns are not like movie guns, people REALLY do bleed and die, and a demonstration is definitely in order. Pumpkins, watermelons, cantaloupes make good examples. If the child is small, ask him what would happen if that had been a person and not a pumpkin and then talk about it!
A man in law enforcement at any level especially ought to know to keep the weapon locked up if there are other children in the house. And, if you are going to take out the clip, you obviously have to make sure there isn’t a round in the chamber! I frankly don’t understand why you wouldn’t have a weapon loaded at all time myself.
One more point I’d like to make. If your children go over to a friend’s house, ask them if they have weapons and if they are secured.
I feel bad for the loss of a child, his family, and his friend and his family will be forever haunted by this tragic event. And now, the anti-gun bunch will use this to their advantage.
I heard of some product, I don’t remember what, described as “only for indoor or outdoor use”! Guess they couldn’t think of anything to warn anyone of, and were afraid of the lawyers if they didn’t say anything.
[[If the kid had run out in front of a car would they sue Chevrolet?]]
No- they’d probaBLY aue hte highway department for not painting “Running out in front of cars may be hazzardous to your health” all over hte pavement every ten feet or so, incase someone forgot the message i n the next ten feet
Yes. It went home with an idiot.
I bet they would, plus who built the road and the manufacturer of the shoes that he wore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.