Shooting victim can sue gun maker

[RugerNiner]

BUFFALO, N.Y. — An appeals court in New York has ruled that a former high school athlete who was shot in 2003 can sue the companies that made and distributed the handgun used in the crime.

The ruling reverses a lower court's dismissal of Buffalo victim Daniel Williams' complaint. Williams claimed Ohio gun maker Hi-Point and distributor MKS Supply intentionally supplied handguns to irresponsible dealers for profit. The gun used to shoot Williams was bought at a gun show by a Buffalo gun trafficker.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence praised the decision to let the case move forward, saying it means gun companies that supply the criminal market are not above the law.

Hi-Point attorney Scott Allan says Hi-Point only sells guns to federally licensed distributors and complied with all statutes.

[DennisH82]

We should be able to sue the parents of these politicians and anti-gun whackos for providing a deffective product, their children who grew up and became a drain on society.

[thefirstndsecond]

Has the supreme court ruled on this? It was my understanding gun manufacturers can not be sued?

[mikelets456]

Has the supreme court ruled on this? It was my understanding gun manufacturers can not be sued?

I'd like to know the answer as well. My goodness, if this stands then you can sue the car manufacturer if you walk out into the street and get hit by a car. I could sue the maker of a shopping cart that was left in the middle of a parking lot and I ran into it.

It's lawsuits like this that are just as bad as regulations, taxes and stifling jobs and ingenuity.

[ChamberedRound]

On the surface, this lawsuit appears to run afoul of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and seems to be a case of a liberal NY judge disrespecting the rule of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect...ce_in_Arms_Act

With that said, the article mentions that the crime in question took place in 2003, and the PLCAA wasn't made law until 10/26/2005. It's entirely possible that this case may be allowed to continue simply because the protection provided by the law didn't exist at the time of the incident.

[Marlin60]

Hate to see this happen to any manufacturer but particularly one of the few all-around 100% American-made firearm producers.

Things like this make me want to go buy a couple Hi-Points, just as a means of support.

[Chazman321]

Hate to see this happen to any manufacturer but particularly one of the few all-around 100% American-made firearm producers.

Things like this make me want to go buy a couple Hi-Points, just as a means of support.

A grand for a quality 1911 can get you 5 Hi-Points. Something to think about... lol

Sometimes the fastest reload is 4 extra guns!


-Chaz

[streaker69]

On the surface, this lawsuit appears to run afoul of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and seems to be a case of a liberal NY judge disrespecting the rule of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect...ce_in_Arms_Act

With that said, the article mentions that the crime in question took place in 2003, and the PLCAA wasn't made law until 10/26/2005. It's entirely possible that this case may be allowed to continue simply because the protection provided by the law didn't exist at the time of the incident.

I'll admit that I'm not real good at reading laws, but:

(b) Dismissal of pending actions

A qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.

The way I'm reading it, if the suit was pending when the law was signed, then it should be dismissed, and no further suits should be allowed to be brought before the courts. But I might be reading it incorrectly.

[ChamberedRound]

The way I'm reading it, if the suit was pending when the law was signed, then it should be dismissed, and no further suits should be allowed to be brought before the courts. But I might be reading it incorrectly.

Agreed. However, the article is light on details, and doesn't specify when the suit was filed. If it was filed prior to the PLCAA becoming law, then it's possible it could continue; if not, then I completely agree it should've been summarily dismissed.

[gascolator]

Anybody can sue anyone for anything. Someone famously sued Cessna Aircraft Company (and won a settlement) because they built an airplane that wouldn't run without gas after the pilot either failed to visually check his tanks or miscalculated his fuel-burn, and crashed.

Most of these lawsuits, however, seem to be directed at companies that make particularly, um, "inexpensive" firearms which are a favorite of the underground trade.