Supreme Court Refuses Glock Liability Case

In 2001, the shooting victims and Ileto’s wife filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers, marketers, importers, distributors, and sellers of the firearms related to Furrow’s shooting spree. They alleged that those defendants intentionally produced, marketed, distributed, and sold more firearms than the legitimate market demanded, in order to take advantage of re-sales to distributors that they know or should know will, in turn, sell to illegal buyers. They also alleged that Defendants’ “deliberate and reckless” marketing and distribution strategies created an undue risk that their firearms would be obtained by illegal purchasers for criminal purposes.  In 2002, the district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim under California law.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in part, reasoning that there could be a valid nuisance claim against Glock and other companies whose merchandise was directly connected to the shooting.  In response to this court case, and similar cases pending across the county, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.  This new law was intended to protect federally licensed manufacturers and sellers of firearms from most civil liability for injuries independently and intentionally inflicted by criminals who use their non-defective products. -[source]