Thursday, May 14, 2009

Claims Against Glock Dismissed

The San Francisco Chronicle web site SFGate.com reports on the dismissal of charges against gun manufacturer Glock for a shooting rampage which took place using their products. Now I understand the questions raised a couple times lately by our frequent and extremely respectful commenter Sevesteen, "Do you think that Glock should be liable for criminal misuse of a gun sold to police?"

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.

This seems perfectly clear and reasonable. How could the manufacturer of a legal product be held responsible for the misuse of that product by an end-user? The law suit arose out of a terrible bloodbath which took place in 1999.

Buford Furrow, a mentally disturbed man with neo-Nazi affiliations, took at least seven guns into a Jewish center in Granada Hills and opened fire, wounding three children, a teenager and an adult. An hour later, he fatally shot Joseph Ileto, 39, a letter carrier, in nearby Chatsworth.

Furrow pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life in prison. The suit was filed by Ileto's widow, Lilian, and by three of the wounded youths and another child at the center.

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.

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.


I have to admit, that claim made me think perhaps it's not so perfectly clear and reasonable after all. Could it be possible that gun manufacturers are producing more guns than the society can legally absorb? Could they be completely aware of the fact that the only way so much product is going to be distributed is by saturating not only the legal market but also the illegal one? Isn't it reasonable to assume that gun manufacturers, like any other producer of consumer products, strive to increase sales? Is it such a stretch to figure there really was some merit to the claims against them?

What's your opinion? Does this entire discussion hinge upon the theory of gun availability and its role in gun violence? If you deny that, then there's nothing to discuss. But, If you admit that gun availability plays a part in the problem, then perhaps these questions about the manufacturer are valid. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

6 comments:

  1. "I have to admit, that claim made me think perhaps it's not so perfectly clear and reasonable after all. Could it be possible that gun manufacturers are producing more guns than the society can legally absorb?"

    Go try and buy a Glock! I've never seen the handgun cases so empty as they are these days. Glock sales are WAYYY up this year
    http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=522&Itemid=63
    (As is every maker of double-stack pistols, and conceal carry guns, as well as makers of semi-auto rifles)

    So no, Glock can't make enough to saturate the market. It's physically impossible for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was a bullshit lawsuit and would have been dismissed by any competent court regardless of the law prohibiting it from moving forward.

    Since everyone likes the car analogies, I'll add the obvious: If Ford produces a lot of cars and they get sold to people that use them to robb banks by unlicensed auto dealers running an ad in a classified newspaper, is Ford to blame? It stands to reason that if Ford had reduced the number they sold and only sold them to the government, it is less likely that a criminal would obtain one to use in an armed robbery isn't it?

    The manufacture and sale of firearms is the most regulated and controlled product in the country. Glock can only sell to the government or government licensed distributors who in turn can only sell them to government licensed federal dealers. The "channels" that Glock sold them through were the government. If anyone should be sued then, it is the government. Glock has no control of what said government agencies or licensees to with the product.

    It was also claimed that Glock "sold many guns to police that were unsafe to civilians.." What does that even mean? Do the police have extra thumbs or a different brain cells or something that makes a Glock more safe in their hands than in a civilian's?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who decides the size of the legitimate market?

    Who decides how big Glock's share is?

    Under the theory of "saturated legitimate market liability" Is there any way that a company can know ahead of time if their sales are legal?

    If the government was warning Glock about high-risk distribution channels, why didn't the government shut those channels down?

    The popularity of trucks and SUVs contributes to pollution and depletion of natural resources. While there are legitimate uses for trucks and SUVs, most are purchased for illegitimate fashion reasons where a more economical car would work as well. Should GM be liable for over-saturating the legitimate SUV market? Should purchasers of trucks have to prove a need?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even assuming the allegation is 100% truthful, it has major issues:

    ...and sold them through channels that would reach a "secondary market" of private and under-the-table transactions.

    Setting aside the fact that private transactions are completely legal and "under-the-table" is a pretty meaningless phrase (it could mean anything from "slipping it to a death-row inmate" to "sold without four permits, an authorization to transfer, and a cop supervising the transaction", depending on whose "common sense" we're using), what exactly does this mean? What "channels" are we talking about? Gun manufacturers can only ship guns to licensed dealers (the guys who have to run background checks on each sale); if they're doing otherwise--and I very sincerely doubt they are--they need to be taken to criminal court. If the plaintiffs think Glock was selling to "unscrupulous dealers", then the dealer is the one actually breaking the law; he just doesn't have pockets as deep as Glock's.

    The suit said Glock Inc...sold many guns to police that were unsafe to civilians...

    Beg pardon? Glock makes one handgun in a variety of sizes and calibers. If one is "unsafe to civilians", they all are. What exactly makes a gun "unsafe to civilians"?

    ...and ignored government warnings about high-risk distribution channels - in this case...through several owners to an unlicensed trader, who sold it to Furrow.

    Okay, so Furrow bought his guns in a private sale. And the guy he purchased from bought it from somebody else, who bought it from a dealer that bought it from Glock (the statement is vague, but that's the minimum number of people that can be involved as written). And the plaintiffs believe Glock is partially responsible because it should have refused to sell any product to that dealer on the basis that some local cops thought that dealer _might_ legally sell some of those guns to somebody who _might_ sell them to somebody who _might_ sell them to a criminal.

    If that's the standard for ethical behavior by gun dealers, I would be unable to buy a gun. Police in New Jersey would report every shop as the source of at least a few guns that eventually "flowed" to criminals, and manufacturers would be forced to stop shipping product to this state or face ruinous lawsuits, and federal-level interstate purchase restrictions would prevent me from going someplace less anti-gun to purchase.

    This is an unreasonable standard to hold a business to. There are reasonable laws that can do some good to diminish inappropriate access to guns without unduly burdening the right to keep and bear arms, but these lawsuits aren't in that category.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, I think FWM got it right. "It was a bullshit lawsuit." I found the rationale interesting, but in the end less than convincing. The Glock company would have been removed at least by two or three layers from any wrongdoing. And to try and prove their "evil" intentions is just silly.

    Yet, I still have a problem with the volumes of guns being produced and continually pumped into the market. The market being the legitimate one initially, but the further removed you get from the early wholesale transactions the fatter the "black" market becomes.

    What to do, I'm not sure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sevesteen asked, "Who decides the size of the legitimate market?

    Who decides how big Glock's share is?
    "

    I like these questions because they speak directly to my opinion that there are too many guns and that gun availability is part of the problem. If I'm right, which I know you're not agreeing to, but if I am right then limiting guns at the source would be the best solution.

    How to do it is a good question, which I unfortunately don't have an answer to.

    ReplyDelete