From the book "Guns in American Society: A-L" by Gregg Lee Carter:
page 392:
"... ruling by the California Supreme Court on August 6, 2001, that a gun manufacturer could not be held responsible for the deaths that resulted when its product was used in a lethal rampage (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal. 4th 465; 2001). The 5-1 ruling relied heavily on a 1983 California special-interest statute that granted immunity to weapons manufacturers on the ground that the benefits of their products outweighed the dangers they posed (California Civil Code Section 1714.4).
In her majority opinion, Justice Ming W. Chin took pains to point out that the court was very sympathetic to the suffering of the gun victims, but for it to rule against the manufacturer would open the door to the filing of lawsuits by every person harmed by gunfire."
I know this doesn't mean that she's pro-gun, but at least she wasn't the lone dissenter, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.
Just something to consider when you're looking at your ballot.
page 392:
"... ruling by the California Supreme Court on August 6, 2001, that a gun manufacturer could not be held responsible for the deaths that resulted when its product was used in a lethal rampage (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal. 4th 465; 2001). The 5-1 ruling relied heavily on a 1983 California special-interest statute that granted immunity to weapons manufacturers on the ground that the benefits of their products outweighed the dangers they posed (California Civil Code Section 1714.4).
In her majority opinion, Justice Ming W. Chin took pains to point out that the court was very sympathetic to the suffering of the gun victims, but for it to rule against the manufacturer would open the door to the filing of lawsuits by every person harmed by gunfire."
I know this doesn't mean that she's pro-gun, but at least she wasn't the lone dissenter, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.
Just something to consider when you're looking at your ballot.
Comment