JUSTICE DENIED: THE CASE AGAINST GUN INDUSTRY IMMUNITY
On August 10, 1999, white supremacist Buford W. Furrow Jr. killed one person and wounded five others in a shooting spree that began in a Jewish Community Center (JCC) in the Los Angeles area. Using an assault weapon manufactured by the Chinese company China North, Furrow fired approximately 70 rounds in the center. As many as 250 children were present, although many were outside when the shooting occurred.
After leaving the center, Furrow called out to Joseph Ileto, a Postal Service employee, under the pretext of asking him to put a letter in the mail. As Ileto agreed to do so, Furrow pulled out a Glock model 26 semiautomatic handgun and shot him to death.
- Snip -
After the shooting, victims of the tragedy and their families sued both China North and Glock Inc., the manufacturers’ American subsidiary, which imported the weapons and distributed them within the United States. The cases against Glock and China North turned out very differently. In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was enacted to shield gun manufacturers, distributors and retailers with federal firearms licenses from lawsuits arising out of third party misuse of a firearm, which resulted in Glock, Inc. being dismissed from the suit. China North was not granted protection under the Act, however, because it did not have a federal firearms license and the company ultimately agreed to settle their case.
Although PLCAA allowed Glock, Inc. to escape accountability their actions appeared to be very troubling. Plaintiffs alleged that Glock’s marketing and distribution practices made it far more likely that criminals would obtain their weapons. These practices included: a)Not training dealers to avoid straw sales and other illegal transactions; b) Refusing to terminate contracts with distributors who sold to dealers with disproportionately high volumes of guns traced to crime scenes; c) Marketing that emphasizes firearm characteristics such as their high capacity and ease of concealment, that appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent; d) Purposely supplying more firearms than the legitimate market could bear in order to induce sales in the secondary market.
http://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Justice-Denied-Report-PDF.pdf
Manufacturers, through unscrupulous dealers, are literally getting away with murder while the NRA provides marketing support for these enablers of misery and death on our streets. Thanks to the right-wing gun lobby and their apologists, they can't be sued in order to provide a monetary liability on their reprehensible practices. Auto manufacturers, lawn furniture manufacturers, shovel manufacturers, and most all manufacturers of consumer products can be, and are, sued for negligence and are regulated for safety by various government agencies.
Guns are "special" however, because the right wing gun lobby has been very successful in what they do: marketing and selling lethal implements which are only designed for one purpose: to kill. "Recreational shooting" is really about acquiring the skill and perfecting the ability to kill. The gunsplainers will toss around some nomenclature terms, and a few labored statistics about how they are so misunderstood, and refute that 30,000 deaths a year are an "accurate picture" of the gun violence state-of-affairs in the USA.
As the gun dealers like to brag: "Step up and get your man card right here, and show the world that you are someone special." Isn't that special...?
= new reply since forum marked as read
