|
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) requires the dismissal of the Ileto v. Glock, RSR, case originally filed in August 2000.
"This is exactly the kind of case that Congress had in mind when it passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. "We applaud the court of appeals decision.
The PLCAA was passed and signed into law in 2005 with strong bi-partisan support. The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and retailers from being held liable for the criminal actions of others with their products.
"My clients are grateful for the court's decision," said Christopher Renzulli, of the White Plains, N.Y., Renzulli Law Firm, who represented Glock and RSR. "Today common sense and fairness prevailed over misguided attempts to blame members of the firearms industry for the criminal acts of others."
The firearm that was eventually illegally obtained and criminally misused in a 1999 shooting incident was originally sold by Glock, the manufacturer, to a Washington State police department. The co-defendant, RSR, a wholesale distributor, did not own, possess or sell the firearm.
"The Ileto case was the textbook example of why Congress needed to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," said Keane. "If Glock and RSR were held legally responsible for this criminal shooting, then the police department to whom the firearm was originally sold would be even more responsible. Such twisted logic defies common sense and explains why in 2005 Congress passed the legislation by such an overwhelming bi-partisan margin."
|
