Posted on 05/30/2004 1:05:04 AM PDT by neverdem
Reuters
SAN FRANCISCO -- The chief Western U.S. appeals court stood by its decision Friday to allow a wrongful-death lawsuit to proceed against a gun manufacturer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to have a larger panel of judges reconsider its 2 to 1 November ruling that allowed a lawsuit against Glock Inc. and gun sellers. The suit alleges negligence for using a distribution scheme that made it likely their guns would end up in the hands of illegal buyers.
The case stems from the murder of a postal worker, Joseph Ileto, who was shot by a white supremacist. The gunman also shot and injured three young children, a teenager, and an adult worker at a Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, Calif., in 1999.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
BANG
Acutally...how about people suing judges who let violent felons back on the street?
Nah, there is actually a modicum of sense in the above. The judicial system would therefore never go for it.
The courts are the judge, jury, and executioner as well as the legislature in this country today. We live in a system of judicial tyranny, and the judges have rigged it so that they can't be held accountable. You can't sue them for any decision, no matter how flawed or contrary to law, the Constitution, or common sense.
You must remember that the California state flag has a bear and a red star on it,ever wonder why?.
Full article here sans the Washington Compost:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5291957
I think you're on to something.
Give california back to Mexico.
No problem, when it goes to appeal, I'm sure that SCOTUS will be sure their decision is within UN guidelines.
With eight dissents, I think there's a good chance SCOTUS will reverse this monstrosity. One of the dissenters really got it right by stating that the majority's "reasoning" would allow anyone injured by a juvenile driving a high powerred car over the speed llimit to sue the car's maker for negligent marketing, since that maker advertised the car's performance capability.
The big problem with this firearms litigation is that the "reasoning" of the plaintiffs could be applied in any litigation against any manufacturer of any powerful or potentially destructive machine. For example, makers of various type of kitchen knives joyously advertise their products day and night on cable channels THAT CHILDREN CAN WATCH. They all claim their knives are sharper and more capable of cutting while retaining their edges than any other knives. If a neo-Manson cult acquired a number of such weapons after watching the advertising and proceeded to butcher 20 citizens, one of the victims' heirs could argue the knife manufacturer was liable for the murder because the manufacturer "negligently" advertised its great cutting properties. Same holds true for somebody whose copyrighted work is illegally reproduced by somebody with a copying machine.
Ahem... isn't liberals providing welfare money to criminals that allow them to have guns and what not?
oh, boy...
Is the NRA going to help us out on this one by supplying legal talent to sue General Motors, etc. ?
A few suits against other potential targets, and we would have some protection.
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_971saddamvp
More good nooooze !
Stay Safe !
Suppose this goes to a trial and the jury calls the plaintiff's arguments horse manure. Does that set any precedent?
While the ACLU and many other hard left groups joined the NRA in opposing McCain's half-baked, crazy CFR, don't hold your breath expecting GM, Ford, fast food, etc. to file amicus briefs in support of the NRA, NSSF, firearm dealers and manufacturers, etc. saying that individuals are responsible for their own actions. They'll be boycotted for supporting the NRA.
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.