First saw this linked at QandO. I wonder why they refused. That "no comment" thing bothers me.
This is one of those cases where the police sell back their guns to the manufacturer who then sells them to a reseller. Then a private citizen buys and resells the gun to someone not allowed ownership. After all that, I still wonder how it is that the original manufacturer or distributor can be held liable.
What will this do to the insanity of lawsuits that already exist? Imagine if you could sue Ford or Chevy if someone crashes into you with their car.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Supremes Refuse to Hear Gun Manufacture Lawsuit Appeal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This kind of thing makes me crazy. I do note that while: "According to court records, the department sold the weapon to a gun shop in exchange for a different model." the police department purchased the gun and then sold it, they're somehow not part of the lawsuit, but the company RSR who bought the gun from the policy, as the policy bought it from Glock, and then sold it to the collector, as the police sold it to RSR, is somehow not on the lawsuit. What's up with that?
Post a Comment