Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/14/2006 3:22:45 AM EDT
Starting to finally see action based on the lawful commerce law.
A judge in NY has already decided a similar NY case can proceed despite the lawful commerce law.
This judge in CA did the right thing, on the other hand.



NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 13, No. 10 03/10/06

CALIFORNIA JUDGE DISMISSES SUIT
THANKS TO "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"

On Monday, Federal District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins used the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" as the basis for dismissal of a reckless "public-nuisance" lawsuit against firearm manufacturer Glock and distributor RSR. In doing so, Judge Collins became the first judge in the country to use the new law to counter the anti-gun lobby's shameless attempts to hold the lawful firearm industry responsible for the acts of criminals.

The suit sought to blame Glock and RSR for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow's heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted, but did nothing illegal, and 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, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:32:46 AM EDT
Bout damn time.
Top Top