May 12, 2009 in Nation/World

Court rules gun makers and sellers not liable

Carol J. Williams Los Angeles Times
 

LOS ANGELES – Firearms manufacturers and sellers cannot be held liable for criminal misuse of their products, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday in a case stemming from a white supremacist’s 1999 shooting rampage at a Jewish community summer camp in Los Angeles’ northern suburbs.

The suit brought by the mother of a man fatally shot by Buford O. Furrow Jr. and the families of five others wounded sought to hold Georgia-based Glock Inc., a Seattle-area gun dealer and a Chinese manufacturer liable for negligence.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the constitutionality of a 2005 federal law that retroactively shielded gun makers and distributors from responsibility for criminal acts involving properly functioning weapons.

Furrow, a follower of the racist Aryan Nations, unleashed a barrage of semiautomatic weapons fire at the Jewish Community Center camp in the Granada Hills neighborhood on Aug. 10, 1999, wounding an adult, a teenager and three children ages 4 to 6. Later in the day, he shot and killed letter carrier Joseph S. Ileto.

Furrow pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty and is serving five life terms in prison.

The victims’ suit against the gun providers was dismissed in 2002 for failure to state a claim under California law. A year later, a 9th Circuit panel reversed that district court decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review it, clearing the way for trial of the gun makers and sellers.

Meanwhile, Congress passed the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shielding suppliers from such suits and ordering dismissal of pending claims.

Monday’s ruling asserted that the law doesn’t violate constitutional protections of due process and separation of powers.

A third defendant, China North Industries Corp., was not held to be immune from prosecution, though, because the law applies only to those registered with the federal government. The 9th Circuit panel sent the case against the Beijing company back to U.S. District Court for trial.

Get stories like this in a free daily email


Please keep it civil. Don't post comments that are obscene, defamatory, threatening, off-topic, an infringement of copyright or an invasion of privacy. Read our forum standards and community guidelines.

You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus