An actual warning from a Sturm Ruger owner's manual.
Posted on 08/31/2009 1:20:49 PM PDT by neverdem
Seeking to revive a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer over a teenager’s accidental but fatal shooting of a friend, lawyers for the Illinois parents of the dead boy have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a four-year-old federal law that shields the industry from many — but not all — lawsuits. The petition in Adames, et al. v. Beretta USA Corp., filed last Monday and docketed as 09-253, can be downloaded here [1]. That file includes the appendix. For a link only to the Illinois Supreme Court decison rejecting the constitutional challenge, click here [2].
The 2005 law – titled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — was controversial when passed, and has been attacked repeatedly since then in court. The challengers have argued variously that Congress either had no power to wipe out already-filed lawsuits against gun makers, or that it went too far in doing so. So far, the Supreme Court has not been willing to get into the controversy, and the first issue facing the new lawsuit is whether it is sufficiently different that it can not only draw the Justices’ interest, but also overcome likely resistance from the federal government.
Last March 19, the Court denied review in two cases challenging the Act — New York City, et al. v. Beretta (08-530) and Lawson, et al. v. Beretta (08-545). The federal government joined in both of those cases to defend the law, and successfully urged the Court not to hear either one, arguing that neither one raised clearly the issues it sought to put forward. In the new case, the Justice Department was not involved as it went through Illinois courts, but because a federal law could be at stake, it could do so in the Court...
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
I will sue Ford because my friend ran across the highway with out looking and got hit by an F-150....
Parents feel guilty about the death, are trying to “make it right” after the fact by doing what they feel is an act of love. Of course it’s not an act of love, they are using the tragic death of their son for political purposes and to hit the lottery via lawsuit, and I cannot think of a more morose, self serving act than that.
Now that GM is public property, maybe the harmed party can sue them when the next SUV causes a death, accidentally of course. The deep pockets syndrome applies, someone has to pay.
This is just so much liberal claptrap it’s silly on it’s face. Every time you cut yourself with a knife, sue the manufacturer, not he dimwit holding the knife. Nearly everything can harm, it’s the user that does the deed.
Guns are not toys. You should not be able to sue because someone was “playing around with it” and it went off.
I think these parents should be sued.
Sue GM, ford, and Disney too, they gotta lot of money.
And,,, the literature that came with the gun has a section on unloading it. How to remove that magazine, AND,,, the cartridge in the chamber. So the basis for their case is incorrect.
The parents do not have the deep pockets that gun manufacturers have.
Ka-ching! There’s never a dull moment when a venal, corrupt sheister meets an angry and ignorant parasite.
No problem; with America’s crime rates so very, very low, we don’t need our courts for anything important, anyway.
Well, if people can sue gun manufacturers for things over which they had no reasonable control, I can sue those same people for being stupid. Their stupidity stands to harm my interests so I have standing.
But, the gun didn,t fail to perform its function.
In fact, it functioned perfectly.
Where’s the case?
Q: What do you get when you cross a sleazy leftist politician with a crooked lawyer?
A: Sasha and Malia!
They’re not saying the gun didn’t work as designed.
1) Normal practice in lawsuits to name everyone involved, as well as anyone who has ever met any of the other plaintiffs, or has a company name having the same number of letters as one of the plaintiffs.
2) The shooter’s dad, an off duty cop, removed the mag from the Beretta, but failed to clear the chamber. The plaintiffs’ contention is that Beretta failed to warn customers that removal of the mag didn’t render the gun safe. Some Freeper, however, found and posted the section of the manual that covered exactly this.
I was engaging in satire.
Sorry I didn’t didn’t include a “haha”.
Idiots.
I agree. Just explaining background on the case to another poster who was making a joke I failed to get.
Oh, OK, sorry for missing it.
The guy that runs scotusblog.com is a liberal. attorneys associated with him filed an amicus brief in the Hartford firefighter case urging the supreme court to screw over the firefighters.
Cert will be denied in this case. The issues have been resolved many times and the petitioners are simply grasping at straws.
An actual warning from a Sturm Ruger owner's manual.
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.