Defensive Carry banner

Sanity Returns to California (Temporarily?)

705 6
Edit Note 3/14/06 :embarassed: : Also see Previous ExSoldier762 Post of 3/13/06 on same topic (Sorry, Ex!)


Judge Invokes New Federal Law in Dismissing Gun Lawsuit
By Susan Jones Senior Editor
March 14, 2006

( - A federal judge in California dismissed a "public nuisance" lawsuit against a gun manufacturer and a gun distributor on Monday, invoking a new federal law intended to protect the gun industry from politically motivated lawsuits.

The National Rifle Association said this is the first time a judge has used the new law (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) to stop an attempt to hold the gun industry responsible for the acts of criminals.

The lawsuit blamed Glock and gun distributor RSR for the criminal actions of white supremacist Buford Furrow, who in 1999 shot and killed a postal worker and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California. Furrow, a former mental patient with a criminal record, was legally barred from owning guns.

According to the NRA, the Glock pistol, one of several guns Furrow was carrying, originally was sold to a police department, which eventually sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow.

Glock was targeted although it did nothing illegal, and RSR never owned, sold, or possessed the firearm, the NRA said.

"It is fitting that this case was the first ever dismissed based on the because the facts made this case the poster child for passage of common sense legal reform," said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act into law in October 2005. At the time, the National Rifle Association called it the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

750 Posts
Here's where I might be at odds with some of the Forum members who are in the legal profession.

I am of the opinion that the lawyer(s) who brought this case before a judge should be sued by Glock and RSR. As stated in the above article, Glock did nothing ilegal and RSR had absolutly nothing to do with it in the first place.

In an opportunistic attempt to "dig into the deep pockets," they brought two companies into court at great expense. If they wanted to claim some sort of "justice," they might have included the person that actually sold the gun to the shooter.

Then again, maybe "justice" would demand that the guy who sold you the car should also pay part of your speeding ticket, as well as the manufacturer that made a car that can exceed every speed limit in the country.

Money-grubbing pirates like these should be drummed out of the legal profession. But, the profession itself has shown no real interest in cleaning up it's act. "Look at all the good we do!" is their usual response.

Well, I don't buy it. The "good" they usually do is to enable the greed of their clients. And like the average con man, who blames any wrong-doing on that greed, the lawyer takes NO responsibility for bogus suits like the one above, but has no problem taking their cut of the cash.

It's too bad that the cases that do enable some form of justice get over shadowed by the bogus variety, but most of the time, it looks like the bogus case is the norm these days.

We need more tort reform, not less.

This suit would not have passed a test of "common sense," had there been one before going to trial. But the legal professionals that brought the suit probably got their cut in advance.

Reading about such cases is why I have such a low opinion of the profession in the first place. Hearing lawyers defending those who bring these cases forward lowers that opinion even more.

Whew! I'm done now. :22a:


Super Moderator
14,335 Posts

You are so right, but at least the outcome was positive, the legislation has been tested and upheld in court setting a precedent and emphasizing the futility of future attempts to extort money from lawful gun industries. Seems to me it is esp. emphatic that this occurred in such a gun unfriendly state.

Premium Member
25,596 Posts
Sense can prevail - just not often enough. This was tho a very good result.

Mike - I agree too - regarding the need for MORE tort reform - in fact it is vital.

1943 - 2009
10,720 Posts

Well said!:congrats:

Super Moderator
29,327 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
TORT Reform! Yes!

Well put, madmike! Please note that the "Plaintiff's Bar" is a very major contributor to some of our "favorite" politician's campaign coffers. Just another reason to stand where we do.

I'd love to see some counter-suits based on "frivilous" arguments go forward. Probably won't happen, but we can dream.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.