Free Republic

The exception for state law requires the defendant be convicted of violating the state law. Here is the exclusion in the new law that the judge probably based his decision on:

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

So all the plaintiffs have to do is claim they can prove the manufacturer aided, abetted or conspired with someone to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. Then the judge can allow the suit to continue and further bleed the resources of manufacturers. It doesn't matter to the plaintiffs if they lose the case, it's how long can we keep them in court before we lose or can we get the defendant to settle as did Smith & Wesson.

It looks to me like the new law has a gaping loophole.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit's intent is not really about who is legally liable. The real intent is to blackmail people with money. This guy was deprived of a likely college scholarship and wants someone, anyone to compensate him for it. So he files suit and the defendants either spend a ton of money defending themselves or settle. The cheaper of the two means the plaintiff & his attorney get paid.

The new law makes it easier for a judge to dismiss this type of suit. But as we've seen in New York, if the judge is biased, he can still allow legal procedings to continue. None of these lawsuits are about winning, they are about bleeding the gun companies into bankruptcy.

Have you ever bought a gun? The retailer calls NICS (the FBI) and they approve or disapprove the sale. The dealer is obligated to make the sale unless he has info that indicates it would be illegal.

It's the BATF's job to find out if the person buying is a straw buyer. The dealer is a business man, not a private detective. Dealers are regulated by the BATF. If they are not following procedure, they lose their dealer's license.

Here's an idea for the folks on the east coast. Organize protests across from the headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC & CNN. Tell them Sheehan's 15 minutes is up and maybe everyone else can go home.

I was hopeful for a different decision in this case but based on other recent decisions, not surprised. I was disappointed that only 2 justices, Stevens and Ginsburg, dissented. So now the court has ruled that if you have a restraining order, the police MAY, or have the OPTION of, arresting that person if they THINK the order has been violated. Doesn't that make you feel safe now? I guess if a woman's kids are missing and she has an idea about where they are, the Supreme Court would prefer she go after them instead of letting the police handle it.

There are two other points to think about. The taxpayers of Castle Rock, CO funded this court battle. Now instead of paying to settle the lawsuit they can pay for the lawyers and whatever else they feel necessary to provide for their own personal security instead. Also this case never went to the Colorado Supreme court as the dissenting judges indicated it should have. It went from the Colorado Appeals court to the US Supreme court. Anyone know why? Just curious. This is another decision in the mounting pile of decisions that will hopefully make court appointments a major issue in future elections, starting with the 2006 US Senate elections.

I hope this administrator and the school get a lot of headlines for this. Maybe a feature on "Hard Copy"! LOL

anyone heard an update on this case or know of any other posts regarding it. I originally saw the story on a tv news show and it was mentioned again today on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show.

ping

ping