Judge rules gun maker not liable for individual's criminal act

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the gun maker Glock brought by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on behalf of a man who was shot and paralyzed by a gunshot.

“A fair reading of the [federal law] shows that Congress intended the scope of its preemption to include claims like the plaintiff’s. The [law’s] plain text extends preemption to plaintiff’s tort and products liability claims,” wrote U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich.

Her ruled the statute constitutional and affirmed the immunity from liability granted in the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

“Its unambiguous terms bar any civil cause of action, regardless of the underlying theory, when a plaintiff’s injury results from ‘the criminal or unlawful misuse’ of the person or a third party, unless a specific exception applies,” the judge said.

The little-notice decision was profiled Friday by Paul Bedard in his “Washington Secrets” column. Bedard pointed out that the ruling is just now drawing attention.

The suit against Glock was filed on behalf of Carlos Travieso Jr. He was in a vehicle with others returning from a church event in 2018 when another teenager found the 9 mm pistol in the car and apparently thought it was safe because the magazine holding the bullets was missing.

But there was a bullet in the chamber, and when she pulled the trigger, the shot hit Travieso.

The ruling was a setback for President Biden, Bedard said, who recently had begged for divine help in removing the immunity afforded gun makers.

Last month, Biden falsely claimed that the firearms industry is “the only industry in America” that can’t be sued.”

“This is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list, (if) the Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these,’ give me that one,” Biden said at the White House.

He claimed that gun makers soon would have “a come-to-the-Lord moment.”

Glock argued it was covered by the immunity act because the shooting was a criminal act, and the judge agreed.

Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation told Bedard the dismissal was welcome news.

“This is an example of lawyers attempting to put the blame for negligent use of a firearm on a manufacturer. The facts of the case are clear. The negligent mishandling of a firearm resulted in tragic effects. There was no defect in the product, design flaw, and as the opinion clearly notes, claims of warning notifications do not make for a claim of product defect,” he said.

“These attempts to hold manufacturers responsible for the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms are misguided and are attempts at legislation through litigation. The PLCAA law was passed with a bipartisan majority in both chambers of Congress to keep activists from attempting to bankrupt firearm manufacturers by tying them up in court with unfounded claims. This demonstrates why protecting this legislation against attacks by President Biden and gun control factions in Congress is critical,” he added.

Bedard noted God “didn’t deliver for President Joe Biden.”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts