Disassembling Glock

by Walter Olson on December 3, 2003

Dan McLaughlin has some thoughts (Dec. 2) on the possible constitutional infirmities of the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Ileto v. Glock (Nov. 20, Nov. 26), in which a three-judge panel okayed a suit against gunmakers for supposedly “oversupplying” the West Coast market in such a way that a crazed neo-Nazi was able to obtain and use several firearms. Among its other problems, the opinion presumes that California can appropriately second-guess and override the more permissive gun-selling laws of the state of Washington, where the guns in question were originally sold. Our take on the same general issue appeared in Reason in 1999.

Related posts

{ 3 comments }

1 Declarations and Exclusions 12.04.03 at 12:37 pm

Shooting Spree Update: 9th Circuit’s Decision on GUn Manufacturer Liability Continues to Draw Criticism

On November 20, we reported on the 9th Circuit’s decision permitting a claim against gun manufacturers arising from the infamous Jewish Community Center shootings. That decision continues to inspire comment and to draw criticism. Today, Walter Olson of…

2 PointOfLaw Forum 04.25.05 at 12:40 am

Gun suits and the Dormant Commerce Clause

David Hardy at Arms and the Law offers some further thoughts on how portions of today’s anti-gun litigation may violate the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a topic previously broached by, among others, Dan McLaughlin and Profs. Sebok and Lytton (see…

3 PointOfLaw Forum 04.25.05 at 12:42 am

Gun suits and the Dormant Commerce Clause

David Hardy at Arms and the Law offers some further thoughts on how portions of today’s anti-gun litigation may violate the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a topic previously broached by, among others, Dan McLaughlin and Profs. Sebok and Lytton (see…

Comments on this entry are closed.