PDA

View Full Version : Civil claim against firearms manufacturerers dismissed - 9th Circuit: Ileto v Glock


Librarian
05-11-2009, 1:43 PM
Under the terms of the PLCAA, the claims brought here, by the victims of a criminal who shot them, against a federally
licensed manufacturer and a federally licensed seller of fire-
arms must be dismissed.

But the claims brought against an unlicensed foreign manufacturer of firearms may proceed. We therefore affirm.


We sympathize with Plaintiffs, who suffered grievous
harm, that Congress preempted some of their claims. Never-
theless, the Constitution “allocates to Congress responsibility
for [such] fundamental policy judgments.” Landgraf, 511
U.S. at 273. Finding no constitutional flaw, we affirm the dis-
trict court’s holding that the PLCAA applies to Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendants Glock and RSR. We also affirm the
district court’s holding that the PLCAA does not apply to
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant China North because,
lacking a federal firearms license, it cannot seek haven under
the PLCAA.


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf

HondaMasterTech
05-11-2009, 1:46 PM
People sometimes... Its like suing FORD because some guy ran you over with an F-250.

bwiese
05-11-2009, 1:58 PM
Not a complete win, as the suit against an importer can continue.

But at least RSR and Glock are spared.

N6ATF
05-11-2009, 2:06 PM
One time when I don't mind Glock's success. LOL

Untamed1972
05-11-2009, 2:15 PM
Seems kind of odd though that just because a product was made by a foreign mfg. that they can be sued for the illegal use of that product by a consumer. If it was legally imported it should still be covered by the same standard.

Glock22Fan
05-11-2009, 2:25 PM
Basically, they are saying that Congress got it totally wrong, and that therefore they are going to let the plaintiff through the small loophole that Congress omitted to plug to the maximum extent that they are permitted so to do..

highpowermatch
05-11-2009, 2:48 PM
absolute insanity, I work with a guy who is terrified of guns (still working on him) even he says this lawsuit is bogus and crazy.

Tillers_Rule
05-11-2009, 3:06 PM
People sometimes... Its like suing FORD because some guy ran you over with an F-250.

Exactly, pretty ridiculous:chris:

RomanDad
05-11-2009, 3:57 PM
Yay.

Joe
05-11-2009, 3:58 PM
Glocks can do it all

Aegis
05-11-2009, 5:38 PM
People sometimes... Its like suing FORD because some guy ran you over with an F-250.

Exactly.

SimpleCountryActuary
05-11-2009, 6:35 PM
People sometimes... Its like suing FORD because some guy ran you over with an F-250.

I think that's been done. Pretend, I mean discover, that the accident was caused by a defective part and then dive into Deep Pockets.

What this means is that a FFL has value beyond the immediate benefit.

N6ATF
05-11-2009, 6:39 PM
I think that's been done. Pretend, I mean discover, that the accident was caused by a defective part and then dive into Deep Pockets.

Or worsened by a defective seatbelt.

dfletcher
05-11-2009, 6:45 PM
Not a complete win, as the suit against an importer can continue.

But at least RSR and Glock are spared.

Can an importer or unlicensed foreign manufacturer even get a federal license to gain exempt status?

Mssr. Eleganté
05-11-2009, 7:30 PM
Not a complete win, as the suit against an importer can continue.

But at least RSR and Glock are spared.

Any importer of firearms would have an FFL and would be protected. It sounds like the court is only allowing the suit to continue against the Chinese exporter, China North Industries (NORINCO).

Good luck getting any money out of NORINCO.

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-11-2009, 8:02 PM
Any importer of firearms would have an FFL and would be protected. It sounds like the court is only allowing the suit to continue against the Chinese exporter, China North Industries (NORINCO).

Good luck getting any money out of NORINCO.

The government is operating on money loaned out by the Chinese. Too funny.

6172crew
05-11-2009, 8:13 PM
The government is operating on money loaned out by the Chinese. Too funny.

Problem is they will go after Steyr or others if the get it their way.

BroncoBob
05-11-2009, 8:42 PM
Totally insane. Lets go after the importer. That is one way to stop importers. But on the other hand the importer is who is keeping this screwed up government in business. Will be interesting. What happens when China says enought of this B%%S***.

KylaGWolf
05-11-2009, 8:51 PM
In this case it wasn't the gun that killed their loved one but a person that used said gun. So why not sue the person that did it or better yet the manufacturer of that person if they want to sue the responsible party.

1JimMarch
05-11-2009, 9:15 PM
Did anybody else notice the name of the judge?

Opinion by Judge Graber

Man, THAT wasn't a good portent...

1JimMarch
05-11-2009, 9:21 PM
On a more serious note, did anybody notice footnote 10?

10We note that Congress also included findings and statements of purpose related to its interest in protecting individuals’ Second Amendment right to bear arms. 15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(1)&(2); id. § 7901(b)(2). In their briefs, Plaintiffs argued that the government has no such legitimate interest, but the Supreme Court has since disagreed. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

nick
05-11-2009, 9:47 PM
In this case it wasn't the gun that killed their loved one but a person that used said gun. So why not sue the person that did it or better yet the manufacturer of that person if they want to sue the responsible party.

No money there, and it's not as ideologically correct. It was a good one though :)

tube_ee
05-11-2009, 9:58 PM
Or worsened by a defective seatbelt.

Or made inevitable by the personal decision of Lee Iaccoca, to save $135 per car, after the engineers told him what the flaw was, what the likely consequences were, and how much it would cost to fix it before going to production.

--Shannon

Ike Arumba
05-11-2009, 10:17 PM
Many years ago, I read of a case where IBM was named as a co-defendant, because the BG used an IBM computer to perpetrate his crime. IBM prevailed, however.

hoffmang
05-12-2009, 12:10 AM
Everyone notice that Judge Reinhardt was in the majority on this panel - dismissing the US manufacturers and FFLs from the case?

-Gene

7x57
05-12-2009, 12:12 AM
Many years ago, I read of a case where IBM was named as a co-defendant, because the BG used an IBM computer to perpetrate his crime. IBM prevailed, however.

IBM hires good lawyers and can afford to keep them fully fueled and ready to scramble, which helps them get a bit more justice than some might get.

7x57