In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Judge dismisses civil suit against gun manufacturers in Los Angeles shooting spree
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Judge dismisses civil suit against gun manufacturers in Los Angeles shooting spree Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Breaking News Sections
(03-26) 06:12 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Gun manufacturers were not responsible for the 1999 shooting spree by a white supremacist who killed a postal worker and wounded five people at a Jewish community center, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by the mother of a slain postal worker and the parents of three children injured in the shooting. Collins ruled Monday that the lawsuit did not show a link between the gun makers and the shooting rampage by Buford O. Furrow. Attorney Peter Nordberg, who represents the victims' families, said he would talk with his clients before deciding whether to appeal. Furrow stormed into the North Valley Jewish Community Center in August 1999 and fired more than 70 bullets. Three boys, a teen-age girl and a woman were injured. He then drove away and killed Joseph Ileto, a Filipino-American mailman. He told police he intended to send a "wake-up call to America to kill Jews." Furrow pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two life sentences without possibility of parole, plus 110 years in prison. The weapons Furrow had at the time of the shooting included an Austrian-made Glock 9 mm handgun; a 9 mm rifle with an illegally shortened barrel by Norinco, a division of the Chinese military; a .223-caliber rifle from Bushmaster of Maine; three other rifles, and a .22-caliber handgun from Davis Industries of California. The victims' families accused the gun makers of negligence for producing and distributing more weapons than could possibly be purchased legally by consumers. The suit alleged the gun manufacturers advertised their products with the illicit market in mind. Collins said the plaintiffs failed to show a link between the gun makers' marketing strategies and Furrow's shooting. "While it may be foreseeable that some criminals might obtain Glock firearms and use them to harm others, there was no way of foreseeing that this particular individual would obtain a Glock firearm and use it to injure these plaintiffs," Collins wrote. Koji Fukumura, an attorney for Norinco, said the judge "came to the only conclusion possible under California law -- that these defendants owed no duty to prevent Buford Furrow from committing his heinous acts." The suit was transferred to federal court because Norinco is owned by the Chinese government http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/03/26/national0912EST0538.DTL
(03-26) 06:12 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Gun manufacturers were not responsible for the 1999 shooting spree by a white supremacist who killed a postal worker and wounded five people at a Jewish community center, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by the mother of a slain postal worker and the parents of three children injured in the shooting. Collins ruled Monday that the lawsuit did not show a link between the gun makers and the shooting rampage by Buford O. Furrow. Attorney Peter Nordberg, who represents the victims' families, said he would talk with his clients before deciding whether to appeal. Furrow stormed into the North Valley Jewish Community Center in August 1999 and fired more than 70 bullets. Three boys, a teen-age girl and a woman were injured. He then drove away and killed Joseph Ileto, a Filipino-American mailman. He told police he intended to send a "wake-up call to America to kill Jews." Furrow pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two life sentences without possibility of parole, plus 110 years in prison. The weapons Furrow had at the time of the shooting included an Austrian-made Glock 9 mm handgun; a 9 mm rifle with an illegally shortened barrel by Norinco, a division of the Chinese military; a .223-caliber rifle from Bushmaster of Maine; three other rifles, and a .22-caliber handgun from Davis Industries of California. The victims' families accused the gun makers of negligence for producing and distributing more weapons than could possibly be purchased legally by consumers. The suit alleged the gun manufacturers advertised their products with the illicit market in mind. Collins said the plaintiffs failed to show a link between the gun makers' marketing strategies and Furrow's shooting. "While it may be foreseeable that some criminals might obtain Glock firearms and use them to harm others, there was no way of foreseeing that this particular individual would obtain a Glock firearm and use it to injure these plaintiffs," Collins wrote. Koji Fukumura, an attorney for Norinco, said the judge "came to the only conclusion possible under California law -- that these defendants owed no duty to prevent Buford Furrow from committing his heinous acts." The suit was transferred to federal court because Norinco is owned by the Chinese government http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/03/26/national0912EST0538.DTL