Gun Lawsuit Dismissed
The first lawsuit to be dismissed due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act occured in LA:
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT FORCES DISMISSAL OF JUNK LAWSUIT AGAINST GLOCK, RSR . . . Today, in a 58-page decision, Los Angeles-based federal district court Judge Audrey B. Collins became the first judge in the nation to dismiss a junk lawsuit based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law by President Bush in October. The judge dismissed a public-nuisance lawsuit filed against Glock and the distributor RSR brought by victims and family members of the now infamous “Jewish Daycare Center” shooting in Los Angeles in 1999 by Buford Furrow, a crazed homicidal maniac. Furrow illegally obtained and criminally misused a Glock pistol originally sold by Glock to a Washington state police department. RSR never owned, sold or possessed the firearm. “It is fitting that this case was the first ever dismissed based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because the facts made this case the poster child for passage of common sense legal reform,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
I’ve never really supported the law but this looks like a decent result from it.
March 8th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Why did you not support the legislation?
The only reason I can think of to oppose it is because it singled out gun manufacturers, it should have been more general and protected ANY law abiding industry from damages resulting from criminal misuse of their products.
Otherwise, I think it was a good law.
Of course it is simply ridiculous that it was needed in the first place, but it was needed.
“Loser Pays” would fix a lot of the problems in our tort system, but don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
As to why: Because special protection is special protection.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Do you oppose the Second Amendment, for the same reason? It’s special protection, too.
March 8th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
For who? It says the right shall not be infringed.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Special protection? I’d call it proper checks and balances. Anti-gun zealots were abusing the legal system. They didn’t need to win any of those cases, the mounting court costs over the cours of many years would have done the job for them. Holding a manufacturer or distributor liable for the misuse of a legally made, and legally sold item is wrong any way you slice it. That law addressed a specific abuse that was a direct threat to the viability of the gun industry, and eventually our ability to own a gun if we want one.
It would be harder to exercise that right if everyone that made or sold firearms was sued out of business, or forced to drastically raise prices.
That was the intent behind those suits, and our representatives did something right for a change by confronting it directly.