May 12, 2009

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Dismisses Lawsuit Against Glock

A May 11 ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses a lawsuit against Glock by the victims of a gunman in Grenada Hills, California.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling that the case, Ileto v. Glock, was nullified under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

That federal statute was passed to prevent lawsuits against gun makers, and this specific case was cited during Congressional debate as precisely the kind of lawsuit the law would prohibit.

In August 1999, a deranged man named Buford Furrow opened fire at a Jewish Community Center summer camp in Granada Hills. The Glock pistol he used had once been owned by a police department in Washington State, but had been sold as surplus and passed through several hands before Furrow got it.

Furrow wounded three children, a teenager and adult at the Jewish Center and later murdered a postal carrier, Joseph Ileto. Families of the victims, and Ileto’s widow, sued Glock and others in 2001, claiming that gun companies “intentionally produce, market, distribute, and sell more firearms than the legitimate market demands.”

Judge Susan Graber wrote the majority opinion, stating that “The PLCAA affects future and pending lawsuits, and courts are required to ‘immediately dismiss’ any pending lawsuits preempted by the PLCAA.”

Comments (18)

I feel that the Democrat Majority should pass a bill to change the name of the President to KING then they can make the Constitution unconstitutional since it and any other law they don't like just get in their way.. Then idiotic law suits will be nonexistant..

Posted by: Jim N | May 18, 2009 2:56 PM    Report this comment

To be honest, I think my name got changed because I had to reformat my hard drive to repair a damaged registry (virus, I guess), and the blog treated me as a noob when I logged back on. Don't know why, but the whole travail is just one more reason for me to hate Bill Gates.


Posted by: Lee W | May 16, 2009 10:06 PM    Report this comment

I thought Gaviota changed his name to Lee W because it's a more passive name but it didn't fool any of us beacause he still writes the same. ;)

Posted by: JWallace | May 16, 2009 8:22 PM    Report this comment

Thanks Jeff. We are all brethren, and we MUST be up to speed on our facts. That is our best (for now) .50 cal ammo. We have a lot of other guys here that do more than I, the blogger formerly known as Gaviota for one. But thanks, I appreciate your thoughts.

Posted by: Tim C | May 15, 2009 8:41 AM    Report this comment

Look for BHO to come at us through the back door.
Such as the UN or some other TREATY!!!

Posted by: av8ors | May 14, 2009 9:47 PM    Report this comment

Tim C,
We appreciate the fact that you provide us with information that helps us understand some of these news articles. I noticed that you do this quite often.

Posted by: JWallace | May 14, 2009 8:32 PM    Report this comment

For the longest time, the Ninth Circuit was referred to as "the nutty Ninth". Now, they've ruled in gun-owners' favor twice in the last
four weeks. Maybe there's hope - or maybe the
sun will start rising in the West.

Posted by: pbs_goat | May 14, 2009 2:46 PM    Report this comment

canovack, you have the right idea, but the DC reps. from Calif. Don't listen to what we have to say, unless it's what they want to here, but alot of us keep trying anyway. But of corse there had to be one MORON that can,t just read the law the way it it written but instead try an inturpet it the liberal way. what part of NO don't they understand comes to mind with the libs.

Posted by: bear1 | May 14, 2009 12:58 PM    Report this comment

Thanks Tim C. I rushed my post and it was poorly written. My thoughts were that Gun Reports would list these people if they are going to post the story. Nice job, good post.

Posted by: Robert J | May 14, 2009 12:15 PM    Report this comment

B.O. easily and quickly picked his new Supreme court justice.

It's choosing a family dog that takes a lot of time.

Posted by: RackEmPunk | May 14, 2009 11:12 AM    Report this comment

Considering this decision, along with the thoughts about who the moron was that dissented, I am reminded of the Heller vs DC decision of the Supreme Court. It boggles the imagination to even begin to try to understand the workings of the liberal mind. Let's not forget that four of the nine SCOTUS justices think that the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" pertains to the states' rights to raise a the face of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights pertaining to individual rights! Now, BHO is
going to nominate a new justice, and we are told that his list is almost entirely composed of people with NO judicial experience, but we can be sure that all of them will be flaming liberals. Once again, it is very important that we communicate our concerns to our elected representatives in the Senate and House.

Posted by: canovack | May 14, 2009 10:48 AM    Report this comment

From the judicial website, it appears, Robert J., the moron was Judge Marsha Berzon. Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Susan Graber affirmed, Berzon dissented, citing (mostly) vague wording in the statute, California State Law, and Intrusuion by the Federal Congress into the Judiciary Powers and Seperation of Powers. "T'was Brillig and the Slithy Toves did Gire and Gimbel in the wabe" She spends an inordinate amount of time explaining this, more than it would take to remind her the job of the judiciary is to see if the law is constitutional, and THEN interpret the will of the legislature. But then, I didn't go to law school, so I didn't learn how to forget stuff when necessary

Posted by: Tim C | May 14, 2009 10:15 AM    Report this comment

Who are the morons that let this case speed by local courts? How many people will read the article and not know the "GODS" that sit in the ninth circuit court? Begs the question: How did it get to the 9th Circuit Court in the first place????? Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | May 14, 2009 10:02 AM    Report this comment

First the liberals tried, and succeeded for the most part, to take over television and influence the masses. Know, I think a lot of liberals are trying to be judges so they can change society to their agenda. Gun Reports, if you are reading this post who the one moron was.

Posted by: Robert J | May 14, 2009 9:38 AM    Report this comment

Apparently some of these apellate court judges spell Judge as "G-O-D" and are therefore not subject to the paltry force of law.

Posted by: Tim C | May 14, 2009 9:36 AM    Report this comment

Apparently some of these apellate court judges spell Judge as "G-O-D" and are therefore not subject to the paltry force of law.

Posted by: Tim C | May 14, 2009 9:36 AM    Report this comment

Interesting. My mind focused on the 2-1 decision as well. Is it fair to conclude that 1 in 3 judges will rule against federal statutes? I didn't think judges could let emotions inluence their decision. I mistakenly thought their decisions were guided by written laws.

Posted by: JWallace | May 13, 2009 5:56 PM    Report this comment

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling...

Okay, who was the one moron who couldn't read and understand black-letter law?

Why, I'll bet that's Obama's empathetic Supreme Court nominee!


Posted by: Lee W | May 12, 2009 7:28 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In