Claims against gunmaker Glock dismissed

SFgate ^ | Tuesday, May 12, 2009 | Bob Egelko

[GSP.FAN]

A federal appeals court dismissed damage claims against gun manufacturers Monday by the victims of a white supremacist's shooting rampage in the San Fernando Valley, saying a 2005 federal law backed by the firearms industry bars such lawsuits.

[GSP.FAN]

[Inyo-Mono]

a 2005 federal law backed by the firearms industry bars such lawsuits.

As it should. Does anyone go after Ford if someone drivng an Explorer kills someone?

[john in springfield]

They claimed that the manufacturers deliberately made more guns than the legitimate market could support and sold them through channels that would reach a "secondary market" of private and under-the-table transactions.

That's like claiming that GM produced so many cars that some of them would inevitably be used in crime, and should pay up big money for so doing.

The suit said Glock Inc., maker of the 9mm pistol allegedly used to shoot Ileto, sold many guns to police that were unsafe to civilians and ignored government warnings about high-risk distribution channels - in this case, from a police department in Washington state through several owners to an unlicensed trader, who sold it to Furrow.

In other words, Glock supposedly had a legal responsibility NOT TO SELL GUNS TO THE POLICE!

Man, you just can't make this stuff up.

[Joe Brower]

A sane ruling, by the Ninth Circus no less.

Will wonders never cease.

[smokingfrog]

Wow. This is unbelievable. Everyone knows that Glocks are prone to suddenly shoot their owners (especially white supremacists) and anyone else who happens to be standing nearby without any warning. (According to some people.) That's why they have to make so many of them. I don't know why a certain police department in Washington state would be selling Glocks through high risk distribution channels. Probably just to make some cash so they could replace their Glocks with Sigs.

/sarc

[ExSoldier]

Does anyone go after Ford if someone drivng an Explorer kills someone?

No, but when the Ford Pinto, AKA the Ford ZIPPO was blowing up after a rear end fender bender, they were taken to task as they should have been for building an unsafe product. These gun suits are an attempt to destroy a lawful industry and they should be barred, but if the firearm in question is proven to be inherently unsafe from a design flaw, then that company should be held accountable. Suppose somebody brought out a new model of firearm and the weapon fired every time you close the slide on a live round without pulling the trigger?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"unfair to dismiss the case based on "blatant special-interest legislation ... protection that no other industry gets."

I agree. We need to start passing legislation to protect McDonalds from being sued by fat people with diabetes who claim they ate too many big macs and on and on...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"but if the firearm in question is proven to be inherently unsafe from a design flaw, then that company should be held accountable."

That's not the case here. Everyone of these cases that have been attempted against the gun industry is suing them for their product working exactly as it's designed. Pull the trigger and bullets come out.

[TheOldLady]

"A sane ruling, by the Ninth Circus no less."

The ninth circus? I smell a rat. While we're rejoicing about this victory, what are they doing behind our backs? I will never trust them nor ascribe good motives to any of their deeds regardless how much I may agree with any individual decision.

[ExSoldier]

That's not the case here.

I realize that and said so in my second sentence. Did you see that?

[green iguana]

but if the firearm in question is proven to be inherently unsafe from a design flaw, then that company should be held accountable

And they are. Those types of lawsuits will always be allowed. Just ask Ruger...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I realize that and said so in my second sentence. Did you see that?"

Yes I did. You are trying to make a point that gun companys should be held liable for their products being deficient. There has never been a question about that. No one has ever said that gun companies should not be held liable for their products working incorrectly. In other words, you are trying to make an argument in which there is no other side because no one is arguing the other side!!

These lawsuits are all about extorting money from gun companies for making their product work properly. Years ago when Baretta first came out with the 92FS they had problems with the slide flying off during firing after firing so many rounds. It was unsafe and Baretta paid for it. No one was defending their product. They were wrong. It's never been an issue.

[ExSoldier]

I remember there was a big stink when one of the service 9mms were having issues with cracked slides (might have been Beretta or might have been Sig P226) but it turned out that the SEALs were shooting like 5,000 rds per week between deployments and the additional stress was so great it far outstripped "normal useage parameters." I just don't recall how that issue was solved since the Sig P226 and the Beretta are both still in use and all special forces have the option of using them. I do think the SEALs kept the P226 as their primary issue weapon (suppressor friendly).

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Actually, now that I think about it, it was the 92F which had the problem. There was something concerning the assembly of the slide where there was a metal piece or something within the rear of the railing that helped stop the slide during recoil. This piece was wearing down after firing something like only 500 rounds through it. There were slides flying off and hitting people in the face. They came out with the 92 FS to fix this problem.

It was during military testing to make it the standard sidearm. As an aside, one of the more egregious mistakes the military made. They should have upgraded the 1911, not get the 92 FS. That’s been proven now because the 1911 is making a re-appearance in places like special forces. Just because something has been around for 75 years (at the time) doesn’t mean it needs replaced.

[blackie]

Good stuff!

[ExSoldier]

one of the more egregious mistakes the military made. They should have upgraded the 1911, not get the 92 FS. That’s been proven now because the 1911 is making a re-appearance in places like special forces. Just because something has been around for 75 years (at the time) doesn’t mean it needs replaced.

While I agree 100% the 1911 should never have been replaced, the decision to do so wasn't due to it's age. A primary reason was that the 1911 presented a logistical nightmare in Europe with our allies. The decision was made to bring our sidearm into compliance with NATO requirements. Of secondary importance but also used as a justification were complaints from some soldiers as to stout recoil in the 45 as well as issues of capacity and repair parts. Both are superb guns.

That the M92FS has failed to live up to the expectations is largely due to constraints on ammunition. Without starting a caliber flame exchange, modern ammo configurations have pretty much removed the barriers in wound size between 45 ACP & 9mm. If it were legal under the Hague Accords, modern JHP designed would make the 9mm as capable as old slab sides. HOWEVER, those restrictions require 2 and 3 hits center of mass (COM) to put down an aggressor which removes the reduced recoil and increased capacity arguments from consideration.

When discussing purely ball ammo, the cross sectional density of the 45 will give it the edge every time and that is why many units now are looking the other way when local purchase 45s are showing up in the gear of soldiers. SOCOM may have an official mandate, but many marines are showing up on the battlefield with Kimbers and Springfield Armory 1911s. The H&K SOCOM Mk23 was an attempt to address this issue with SpecOps forces. Of course the real bottom line isn't ammo or gun but rather shot placement.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"A primary reason was that the 1911 presented a logistical nightmare in Europe with our allies. The decision was made to bring our sidearm into compliance with NATO requirements."

Yes, I do recall that. From what I remember, NATO had converted to our 5.56 round for rifles so we in turn converted to their 9 mm parabellum round for sidearms.

[woollyone]

I just so happen to know a guy who was given a 92FS, that has almost no miles on it. His wife, who was constantly the victim of his hoorible temper and after he threw a claw hammer at a co-worker’s head in anger, encouraged him to give the gun away before his temper caused even more problems.

Anyway...I’m wondering, on behalf of my friend, of course, if this 92FS has one of those problem slides or frames.

I’m sure my friend would want to know before a malfunction forces him to have the embedded slide surgically removed from his right eye socket.

Maybe he should call baretta to see if the serial number is part of a known recall?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I think he’s okay. As I recall, the 92 F was the one with the slide problem. The 92 FS was the model that fixed the slide problem. This testing and problem came about more than 20 years ago when the Barretta was originally being tested and introduced to replace the 1911’s as the military’s main sidearm.

[woollyone]

good word
thanks

will pass the info along.

I prefer 1911