Judge dismisses lawsuit against Glock in case that could have massive 2A ramifications for America

Share:

The following article contains editorial content written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

PHOENIX, AZ- When an anti-Christian asks God for a favor, chances are God won’t be listening. At least that appears to be the case for the current occupant of the White House, Joe Biden.

This past week, Biden was delivered a stunning rebuke from “the Lord,” whom he begged to help erase what he referred to as “immunity” from lawsuits that gun manufacturers enjoy.

According to the Washington Examiner, a federal judge in Arizona this week in a rather quiet decision ruled in favor of one of our favorite firearms manufacturers—Glock—and dismissed a suit by anti-gun group the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on behalf of a man who was accidentally shot and paralyzed.

In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Brnovich upheld the immunity clause included in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005. That act protects gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits that would serve to put most if not all gun manufacturers out of business, which is no doubt the end game of Democrats.

A few weeks ago, Biden in one of his rambling incoherent statements said that he “hoped the Lord” would help to erase that congressionally approved liability umbrella.

This was during a speech on gutting the Second Amendment that was widely applauded by anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment Marxists who populate the left in this country.

Judge Brnovich, who was appointed by President Donald Trump and who is the wife of Arizona’s attorney general, Mark Brnovich dismissed multiple claims contained in the lawsuit which claimed the 2005 act was illegal, instead writing, “The statute is constitutional.”

The decision was actually made two months ago in mid-March, however it only recently gained attention after Biden and top gun-grabbing Demoncrats started to trumpet anti-gun legislation once again, using several mass-shootings as examples of why gun control needs to be strengthened. Of course, these same legislators are silent every day about violence in cities such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles because those killings don’t meet the agenda.

As part of their gun grabbing agenda, Demoncrats have touted the 2005 act as giving gun manufacturers “freedom from liability,” which is a lie. Gun manufacturers are still liable if their products are deemed to be defective, for example.

The liability protection simply offers them protection for suits such as when some deranged lunatic uses their product in order to kill people. This is no different than giving protection to car manufacturers to protect them if a drunk driver uses their car and kills somebody. No difference.

Pro-gun groups were thrilled with the judge’s decision.

“The dismissal of this case is welcome news and demonstrates the importance of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” said Mark Oliva, spokesman for the industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“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 activist from attempting to bankrupt firearm manufacturers by tying them up in court with unfounded claims. This demonstrates why protecting this legislation against attacks by… Biden and gun control factions in Congress is critical,” he added.

Last month, Biden awoke from his slumber long enough to make the false claim that the firearms industry is “the only industry in America” that can’t be sued, which was then he called for divine intervention to end the practice.

During an event in the White House Rose Garden, he said, “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.”

Or something incoherent like that.

He continued, “Because I tell you what, there would be a come-to-the-Lord moment these folks would have, real quickly.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

It’s actually somewhat impressive that Biden managed to fit the Lord into his comments. This week in his statement on the National Day of Prayer, Biden mentioned climate change, the coronavirus pandemic and of course the left’s favorite boogeyman, racial justice. Not ONCE did he mention God, or anything closely resembling Him.

In the suit, a man named Carlos Travieso Jr., who was in a car returning from a church retreat in 2018, was riding with others in the car. One of the car’s occupants found a 9mm Glock pistol in the car, and apparently thought it was safe because the magazine was missing out of the gun. However, there was a bullet in the chamber and the teen, thinking the gun was safe pulled the trigger, striking Travieso who was paralyzed.

 

Travieso v. Glock Inc by Paul Bedard

The lawsuit alleged that Glock, which is the No. 1 firearms manufacturer in the U.S. in sales did not provide adequate safety features on the gun in order to warn there was a live round in the chamber.

While the particular pistol in question had a chamber indicator, the lawsuit said the gun was “defective” because there were no other warnings or safeties. So much for personal responsibility, apparently.

 

In responding to the lawsuit, Glock claimed they were protected under the PLCAA Act because in essence the shooting was a criminal act, i.e., reckless use of a firearm.

Oliva told the Examiner, “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.”

The judge agreed with Glock in her decision, giving a victory to Glock and those who cherish the Second Amendment. She also noted that the liberal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly spurned attempts to challenge immunity for gun manufacturers.

“A fair reading of the PLCAA shows that Congress intended the scope of its preemption to include claims like the plaintiff’s. The PLCAA’s plain text extends preemption to plaintiff’s tort and products liability claims. Its unambiguous terms var 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 exemption applies,” she wrote.

Chalk this up to another one for the good guys. Maybe next time Biden is seeking some kind of “divine” intervention, he try the other guy. That’s who liberal Democrats seem to revere anyway. 

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
 
Facebook Follow First
Share:
Related Posts