Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

gun case

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    nope, I have a similar case- but they are like parades- seen one you ve seen them all!! thanks, Amy Message: 8 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:45:08 -0800 From:
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 28, 2002
      nope, I have a similar case- but they are like parades- seen one you've seen
      them all!!
      thanks,
      Amy

      Message: 8
      Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:45:08 -0800
      From: "Todd Wilson" <tw_investigations@...>
      Subject: Re: suing gun manufacturers

      CURIOUS ? to find out about this case ?.........



      >From: Jurydoctor@...
      >Reply-To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      >To: opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com
      >CC: forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [infoguys-list] suing gun manufacturers
      >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:50:35 EDT
      >
      >I have a case starting in Mid October- where the plaintiffs are suing the
      >gun
      >manufacturers and retailer- any opinions would be greatly appreciated.
      >
      > > Calif. Opens Door for Gun Lawsuits
      > >
      > > Calif. Opens Door for Gun Lawsuits
      > > BY ANGELA WATERCUTTER
      > > Associated Press Writer
      > > September 25, 2002, 8:39 PM EDT
      > >
      > > SAN FRANCISCO -- Gov. Gray Davis cleared the way Wednesday for
      >Californians
      > > to sue gun manufacturers if they believe the companies have been
      >negligent
      > > in the advertising or production of firearms.
      > >
      > > The package of bills Davis signed removes a shield granted to gun makers
      > > regarding negligence lawsuits. Previously, gun manufacturers could not
      >be
      > > sued if their products were used in the commission of a crime.
      > >
      > > A number of states have similar legal shields for gun makers. California
      >is
      > > the first state to repeal such an immunity.
      > >
      > > "No industry should be allowed to hide from its own harmful conduct,"
      >Davis
      > > said in a telephone press conference. "And except for gun manufacturers,
      >no
      > > industry is. Current laws shield a gun manufacturer from its own
      > > negligence. These new laws strip away that shield."
      > >
      > > California's new laws have already gained the praise of gun control
      > > advocates.
      > >
      > > "These bills were our top priority this year, we're thrilled that the
      > > governor has stuck by his position on this," said Eric Gorovitz, Western
      > > policy director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a national
      > > grassroots organization.
      > >
      > > Gorovitz said he hopes the measure will make the gun industry more
      > > responsible because of the threat of lawsuits.
      > >
      > > Critics of the bills, however, argue that they could open the door to
      > > frivolous lawsuits. And, Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California
      >Rifle
      > > and Pistol Association, Inc., says the legislation is an attempt by
      >gun-ban
      > > advocates to swamp gun manufacturers with lawsuits to bankrupt them.
      > >
      > > "They will use this to file multiple lawsuits based on their mistaken
      > > belief that firearms have no social utility," Michel said. "They want a
      > > legitimate industry to pay for the inability of law enforcement and
      >local
      > > authorities to control violent crimes."
      > >
      > > The new law removes a lawsuit shield enacted in 1983 to protect
      > > manufacturers of cheaply made handguns known as Saturday Night Specials.
      > >
      > > The shield was cited by the state Supreme Court last year when it ruled
      > > that a gun company couldn't be sued by survivors of a 1993 rampage for
      > > damages done when criminals use their products illegally.
      > >
      > > Also Wednesday, Davis signed 14 identity theft bills, including one that
      > > keeps mother's maiden names and Social Security numbers out of public
      >birth
      > > and death indexes.
      > >
      > > Supporters said the laws are needed to keep sensitive information out of
      > > criminals' hands, but others said the restrictions will needlessly hurt
      > > law-abiding people, including genealogists and adoptees seeking birth
      > > records.
      > >
      > > "It is a terrible precedent," said Terry Francke, general counsel for
      >the
      > > California First Amendment Coalition. "There was no demonstrated harm.
      >And
      > > I mean none."
      > >
      > > * __
      > >
      > > On the Net:
      > >
      > > http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
      > >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.