Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/10/2005 10:10:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 10:13:09 AM EDT by warlord]
kfwb.com/content.asp?STORY=/stories/S/SCOTUS_GUN_LAWSUITS&groupName=AP%20Top%20National%20Headlines&LINEUP=USHEADS&table1tabCount=6&table1tabOn=1&table2tabCount=6&table2tabOn=2&tabParams=%26table1tabCount%3D6%26table1tabOn%3D1%26tab­le2tabCount%3D6%26table2tabOn%3D2

Jan 10, 10:21 AM EST

Court Won't Hear Gun Industry's Appeal

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to consider dismissing a lawsuit seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the 1999 shooting of a letter carrier by a white supremacist.

Without comment, justices let stand a ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that reinstated a lawsuit against gun manufacturers and distributors. The companies' weapons were used by Buford Furrow to kill Filipino-American Joseph Ileto and wound five people at a Jewish day care center in a Los Angeles-area rampage.

The high court's move, which allows the lawsuit to proceed toward trial, is good news for gun-control groups who say increased liability will stop industry sales tactics that put weapons into the hands of criminals. Several cities nationwide have sought to sue gun manufacturers, but with little success.

Ileto's mother, Lillian, and families of the survivors contend that Georgia-based Glock Inc., China North Industries Corp., RSR Management Corp. and RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle Inc., should be held liable under California law because they knowingly facilitated and participated in an underground illegal gun market, according to the complaint.

A federal judge initially threw out the case, but a divided 9th Circuit panel reinstated the lawsuit in 2003. The panel said a since-repealed California statute immunizing gun manufacturers in product liability actions did not apply, because it did not address the plaintiffs' theories of negligent marketing and distribution.

The full 26-member 9th Circuit declined to rehear the case last May.

Christopher Renzulli, the attorney for Glock and the RSR companies, has said the gun Furrow used to kill Ileto was originally sold to the police department in Cosmopolis, Wash., by the RSR companies.

According to court records, the police department sold the weapon to a gun shop in exchange for a different model. The shop sold it to a gun collector who is alleged to have sold it to Furrow, an ex-convict prohibited from purchasing weapons, at a gun show in Spokane, Wash.

The appeal filed by China North Industries Corp. argued that the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit overstepped its authority in expanding potential liability for gun manufacturers, a role the company says should be reserved for legislatures.

In the original decision reinstating the case, Judge Richard Paez of the 9th Circuit wrote that Glock's marketing strategy creates a "supply of post-police guns that can be sold through unlicensed dealers without background checks to illegal buyers."

In urging their colleagues to rehear the case, dissenting Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote that courts should "be chary of adopting broad new theories of liability."

Congressional legislation barring lawsuits targeting the industry failed last spring.

The case is China North Industries Corp. v. Ileto, 04-423.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:11:22 AM EDT


Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:13:29 AM EDT
Is China North Industries Corp, NORINCO?
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:17:30 AM EDT
me SCOTUS

Freakin morons.

Now if someone runs into me in a Mustang, I'm going to sue Ford for knowingly marketing vehicles to dumb drivers.   And according to this (lack of) ruling leaves EVERY manufacturer of EVERY product open for lawsuits.  

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:17:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 10:18:49 AM EDT by Alien]
Yes, it is RSR's fault for selling the gun to a police department!

It is kinda odd to see NORINCO fighting for the rights of gun manufacturers here though.


Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
me SCOTUS

Freakin morons.

Now if someone runs into me in a Mustang, I'm going to sue Ford for knowingly marketing vehicles to dumb drivers.   And according to this (lack of) ruling leaves EVERY manufacturer of EVERY product open for lawsuits.  




That's the same exact thing I was thinking.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:21:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:23:04 AM EDT
i would prefer gun issues not being heard by this current bunch on the supreme court; it's too risky.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:24:26 AM EDT
Anyone know what happened with Stewart? His case was considered for Cert the same day this one was.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:27:15 AM EDT
Fuck
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:27:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By poink:
i would prefer gun issues not being heard by this current bunch on the supreme court; it's too risky.



agreed.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:29:11 AM EDT

I wonder when MADD is going to start lawsuits against General Motors and the dealerships when people are involved with drunk driving cases?

SCOTUS not wanting to hear a gun related case...boy, that sure suprises me.

Remember this? From the Declaration of Independence...


In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


Sound familar? I think the SCOTUS should read it again. They have been doing this to Gun owners for too long.




Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:30:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Alien:
Yes, it is RSR's fault for selling the gun to a police department!

It is kinda odd to see NORINCO fighting for the rights of gun manufacturers here though.


Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
me SCOTUS

Freakin morons.

Now if someone runs into me in a Mustang, I'm going to sue Ford for knowingly marketing vehicles to dumb drivers.   And according to this (lack of) ruling leaves EVERY manufacturer of EVERY product open for lawsuits.



That's the same exact thing I was thinking.


Norinco is fighting this because they were also named as a party in the lawsuit, its purely a business decision for them, and has nothing to do with 2nd Amend. rights etc.



Originally Posted By Green95LX:
Is China North Industries Corp, NORINCO?


Yep, that is one of the same.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:30:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Green95LX:
Is China North Industries Corp, NORINCO?



Yes.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:50:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RS39:
"Without comment,"

Means they felt that they had bigger issues on their plate that affected more persons in their limited time. It does not mean that they dismissed it as being without merit.


When Cert is denied, it is almost always without comment, as I understand.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:53:33 AM EDT

Supreme court are a bunch of lilly cowards. They are constantly refusing to hear cases....but they always find the time to hear bull-shit cases like the one where the parents listened in on thier kids calls.

I dont understand why they wont hear that case where the 9th & the 5th Circuit Courts have completely polarized opinions. You'd think they would HAVE to hear it!
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 10:56:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 10:58:14 AM EDT by Shaftoe]
You guys are wrong to get upset over this, don't be so reactionary.

This is not the same as SCOTUS ruling one way or the other on the case, it isn't even SCOTUS refusing to hear a case and by doing so leaving a judgement standing - all they've done is refuse to block the case from proceeding. Even if the case goes against the company, the appeal can then be heard and a SCOTUS ruling at that point, tossing it out, would be a much better thing for us.

If they blocked the case now, it wouldn't have nearly the effect of stopping these cases as it will when they overturn the actual ruling - even if the firearms company loses. They may in fact win on the trial court level.

Look deeper people, there are complicated stratagies at work - look what happened when the gays thought they had a victory with the Mass. courts, turns out a small win can be a huge loss.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 11:04:56 AM EDT
What a shitty case.

Christopher Renzulli, the attorney for Glock and the RSR companies, has said the gun Furrow used to kill Ileto was originally sold to the police department in Cosmopolis, Wash., by the RSR companies.

According to court records, the police department sold the weapon to a gun shop in exchange for a different model. The shop sold it to a gun collector who is alleged to have sold it to Furrow, an ex-convict prohibited from purchasing weapons, at a gun show in Spokane, Wash.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 11:06:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By green-grizzly:
What a shitty case.

Christopher Renzulli, the attorney for Glock and the RSR companies, has said the gun Furrow used to kill Ileto was originally sold to the police department in Cosmopolis, Wash., by the RSR companies.

According to court records, the police department sold the weapon to a gun shop in exchange for a different model. The shop sold it to a gun collector who is alleged to have sold it to Furrow, an ex-convict prohibited from purchasing weapons, at a gun show in Spokane, Wash.




That is why it should be allowed to go forward, so the idiots who brought suit can lose fair and square - setting a more solid precedent. I just hope they will be forced to pay the defendant's court costs.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 11:07:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 11:07:46 AM EDT by leelaw]

Glock's marketing strategy creates a "supply of post-police guns that can be sold through unlicensed dealers without background checks to illegal buyers."


Yup, that's Grade-A top of the line truth, right there.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 11:10:35 AM EDT

Ileto's mother, Lillian, and families of the survivors contend that Georgia-based Glock Inc., China North Industries Corp., RSR Management Corp. and RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle Inc., should be held liable under California law because they knowingly facilitated and participated in an underground illegal gun market, according to the complaint.




the gun Furrow used to kill Ileto was originally sold to the police department in Cosmopolis, Wash


Supplying an illegal underground gun market by selling guns to police department?  
Top Top