Court Revives Suit Vs. Gunmakers

[Socialist Christian]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/national/main584967.shtml

federal appeals court reinstated a lawsuit alleging gun industry sales tactics put weapons into the arms of criminals — in this case a white supremacist who killed a mail carrier and wounded three children.

The decision Thursday was expected to re-ignite U.S. Senate debate next year over legislation that would immunize the gun industry from being sued for crimes committed with their products.

More than 30 states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from suits, although few ban lawsuits by both local or state governments and victims of gun violence. The House in April passed a bill to extend a ban on any such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.

The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people — including three children — at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.

[StuckinBuffalo]

1. GOOD!

Private ownership of firearms should not be allowed, especially pistols. They cost society far more than they return in value both in dollars and lives.

[madddog]

13. says YOU lol.

don't like guns, don't have one...hmm...where have I heard THAT line of thought before :D

[slackmaster]

2. Rationale for the suit is twisted beyond recognition as logic

The Glock pistol used by Buford Furrow in his rampage was originally sold to a police department, which later sold it to a federally licensed gun dealer. That dealer sold it to a private collector who then re-sold it to Furrow, who was already a convicted felon and banned from possessing a gun. Yet none of the parties in the chain of ownership starting with the police department are named as defendants, nor did any of them do anything illegal.

It seems to me that providing a way for a private (non-licensed) individual to check up on the background of a person to whom he or she wishes to sell a used gun would make a lot more sense than trying to force the gun makers to assert control over events that are obviously beyond their ability to control.

[Bandit]

4. "nor did any of them do anything illegal."

Just curious how he received the gun if no one did anything illegal and it was against the law for him to purchase a gun? It would seem that if there were some sort of registration that needed doing this would never of happened. Or if it did and the person who sold the gun didn't fill out the registration form they would be liable.

[demdave]

5. The end buyer, the convicted felon, did something illegal

The private collector was within the law to sell to another private party. There is no required paperwork, waiting period or background check. I have bought many guns this way. This is how you affordably buy better shotguns and rifles in the aftermaket from your hunting buddies as they buy better guns for themselves.

I think the idea of a private party having access to a database to perform a background search is a good idea. It could be web based and voluntary. That would not interfer with me getting a gun from my friend but would still give me the option of checking out a stranger.


I know the hardlines won't believe this, but most of us gun owners don't want the guns in the hands of criminals either.

[slackmaster]

9. demdave is correct

I was referring to everyone who owned the gun BEFORE Buford Furrow.

I apologize for being unclear.

[MrBenchley]

6. The gun fairy left it under a cabbage leaf

The Bullseye Gun Shop was clearly criminal...and has been for years.

[demdave]

8. Exactly how is The Bullseye Gun Shop involved in this case?

Or was that just a gratuitous plug for another case?

[madddog]

12. then the ATF

should yank their FFL, plain and simple, no more problem. That they didn't is what you need to look at.

[StuckinBuffalo]

3. GOOD!

Private ownership of firearms should not be allowed, especially pistols. They cost society far more than they return in value both in dollars and lives.

[Frangible]

7. So if I get in a wreck

Do I get to sue Ford? :puke:

[slackmaster]

10. You should sue the steel makers and miners and refiners

As well as every company that made a component of the offending vehicle.

:freak:

[Tuttle]

11. If your car fell apart and the dealer has a history of selling cars

that fall apart and getting in wrecks, then you should sue the dealer.

Or should we protect unscrupulous Ford dealers?

Tut-tut

[short bus president]

14. your analogy begins to make sense

if this was a case involving firearms that caused injury due to a malfunction. This is not about malfunctioning equipment and liability for same. This suit is about using the courts to make law. It stinks.