Post by ladynred on Nov 22, 2003 22:35:04 GMT -5
Appeals Court Revives Wrongful Death Suit Against Gun Industry
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Evening Editor
November 21, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - A federal appeals court in California reversed an earlier decision and ruled on Thursday that a wrongful death suit filed against the gun industry by families of victims in a 1999 shooting can proceed.
The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a lawsuit that was dismissed in 2002 by a federal judge in Los Angeles who stated that gun manufacturers and distributors were not responsible for a rampage that left one person dead and five others wounded at a Jewish day care center in Grenada Hills, Calif.
The case, Ileto vs. Glock, is named for Joseph Ileto, the Filipino postal worker who was killed on Aug. 10, 1999, when Buford Furrow opened fire at the North Valley Jewish Community Center. Furrow, who is now serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, told police that his intention had been to "kill Jews."
Filed under California negligence and wrongful death statutes, the suit alleges that practices by gun makers Glock, Inc., and North China Industries, as well as firearms distributor RSR Management Corp., facilitate easy access to guns by purchasers like Furrow.
"Today's decision will ensure that these victims receive their day in court," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, which serves as co-counsel in the case. "This ruling also shows that many cases against the gun industry are hardly frivolous, as supporters of the gun industry contend."
However, Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America, told CNSNews.com that such cases are indeed frivolous.
"It's wrong to punish the makers of a legal product, a constitutionally protected product, for something that is completely out of their control," Pratt said. "They've made a product that is used in self-defense 7,000 times a day in this country."
Pratt stated that such lawsuits reveal an inherent hypocrisy, noting that if Furrow had used a knife instead of a gun, "they wouldn't be going after the knife manufacturer."
At about the same time as Furrow's rampage, Pratt added, another man "ran his car over kids at a Jewish day care center. He was shouting anti-Semitic statements. But we didn't go after the maker of that car. There's a real double standard here."
Pratt said that such lawsuits are also part of "a war against firearms" in the U.S.
Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, have allowed weapons to reach criminals. Organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have made similar claims, but none of these suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.
"These suits have been very unsuccessful, but it's really not about winning the cases," Pratt stated. "Even while gun manufacturers have won, there have been instances where the gun manufacturer won and had to go bankrupt, which is exactly what the other side is shooting for."
However, Pratt said that Thursday's ruling could be a good thing in the long run because "it may light a fire under the Congress to pass legislation to stop these frivolous suits."
The House of Representatives passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in April, but the bill is stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have threatened to filibuster it. Nevertheless, a spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) told the Associated Press on Thursday he expects that chamber to pass the measure early next year. President Bush has said he would sign the legislation if it reaches his desk.
That is something Horwitz does not want to see happen. "It is unconscionable that Congress is considering granting special protection to this industry," he said Thursday.
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Evening Editor
November 21, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - A federal appeals court in California reversed an earlier decision and ruled on Thursday that a wrongful death suit filed against the gun industry by families of victims in a 1999 shooting can proceed.
The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a lawsuit that was dismissed in 2002 by a federal judge in Los Angeles who stated that gun manufacturers and distributors were not responsible for a rampage that left one person dead and five others wounded at a Jewish day care center in Grenada Hills, Calif.
The case, Ileto vs. Glock, is named for Joseph Ileto, the Filipino postal worker who was killed on Aug. 10, 1999, when Buford Furrow opened fire at the North Valley Jewish Community Center. Furrow, who is now serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, told police that his intention had been to "kill Jews."
Filed under California negligence and wrongful death statutes, the suit alleges that practices by gun makers Glock, Inc., and North China Industries, as well as firearms distributor RSR Management Corp., facilitate easy access to guns by purchasers like Furrow.
"Today's decision will ensure that these victims receive their day in court," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, which serves as co-counsel in the case. "This ruling also shows that many cases against the gun industry are hardly frivolous, as supporters of the gun industry contend."
However, Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America, told CNSNews.com that such cases are indeed frivolous.
"It's wrong to punish the makers of a legal product, a constitutionally protected product, for something that is completely out of their control," Pratt said. "They've made a product that is used in self-defense 7,000 times a day in this country."
Pratt stated that such lawsuits reveal an inherent hypocrisy, noting that if Furrow had used a knife instead of a gun, "they wouldn't be going after the knife manufacturer."
At about the same time as Furrow's rampage, Pratt added, another man "ran his car over kids at a Jewish day care center. He was shouting anti-Semitic statements. But we didn't go after the maker of that car. There's a real double standard here."
Pratt said that such lawsuits are also part of "a war against firearms" in the U.S.
Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, have allowed weapons to reach criminals. Organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have made similar claims, but none of these suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.
"These suits have been very unsuccessful, but it's really not about winning the cases," Pratt stated. "Even while gun manufacturers have won, there have been instances where the gun manufacturer won and had to go bankrupt, which is exactly what the other side is shooting for."
However, Pratt said that Thursday's ruling could be a good thing in the long run because "it may light a fire under the Congress to pass legislation to stop these frivolous suits."
The House of Representatives passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in April, but the bill is stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have threatened to filibuster it. Nevertheless, a spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) told the Associated Press on Thursday he expects that chamber to pass the measure early next year. President Bush has said he would sign the legislation if it reaches his desk.
That is something Horwitz does not want to see happen. "It is unconscionable that Congress is considering granting special protection to this industry," he said Thursday.