Glock gets off

An 11 May ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit against Glock by the victims of a gunman in Grenada Hills, California. In a two-to-one decision, a three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling that the case, Ileto v. Glock, was nullified under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
That federal statute was passed to prevent lawsuits against gun makers, and this specific case was cited during Congressional debate as precisely the kind of lawsuit the law would prohibit. In August of 1999, a deranged man named Buford Furrow opened fire at a Jewish Community Center summer camp in Granada Hills. The Glock pistol he used had once been owned by a police department in Washington State, but had been sold as surplus and passed through several hands before Furrow got it.
Furrow wounded three children, a teenager, and adult at the Jewish Center and later murdered a postal carrier, Joseph Ileto. Families of the victims and Ileto’s widow sued Glock and others in 2001, claiming that gun companies “intentionally produce, market, distribute, and sell more firearms than the legitimate market demands.”
Judge Susan Graber wrote the majority opinion, stating that “The PLCAA affects future and pending lawsuits, and courts are required to ‘immediately dismiss’ any pending lawsuits preempted by the PLCAA.”

Rico says sometimes Congress gets it right; he's sorry for their loss, but it's hardly Glock's fault... (This is a classic 'deep pockets' case anyway. And how, exactly, do you 'sell more than the legitimate market demands'? Isn't that the whole capitalism-at-work, supply-and-demand thing?)