At the end, the reasoning appears as follows:
If a criminal steals my Glock 22 (a machine gun under DC law) or buys his own, goes to DC, shoots a DC resident, then that resident (or his family) have a cause of action against Glock if they can tie Glock to the weapon used. So, if the criminal drops the Glock at the crime scene, DC law will allow a cause of action against Glock. If they can't tie the gun to Glock and there are other manufacturers that could have supplied the gun, there is no cause of action against Glock.
It doesn't matter that the Glock 22 is legal for sale in every other state in the union. Because DC has decided these firearms [semi-automatic firearms with large capacity ammo magazines] are especially dangerous, this court's opinion is that the cause of action depends only on whether a shooting can be tied specifically to one manufacturer.
Phil
I think that's a fair read of the case.
Perhaps we should lobby our state legislatures to establish strict liability of manufacturers for any injuries proximately caused by automobiles. In this way we can pull lots of money into the state, from Michigan and elsewhere, at no cost to residents here. This should make the tourist industry look tame.
--
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
