By
Tom McDermott
Last week, families of two of the victims in the 1999 Pizza Hut murders filed suit against Glock Inc., the manufacturer of the weapon used in killings. Several other parties who bought and the sold the gun prior to the shooting were also named as defendants.
The attorney for the families, Patrick Butler, said he hoped the suit would make gun makers more cautious about gun safety so that tragedies like the Pizza Hut murders do not take place again. Specifically, the suit charges Glock with negligence because it was more concerned with selling a large number of guns than it was with gun safety.
Ok, let's see if we can trace the sale of the gun to find out who is responsible. Glock sold the gun in question to a federally licensed dealer in Denver. The Denver store sold the gun to Centerfire, Inc., a gun store in Tucson.
Centerfire is named as a defendant merely because it sold the gun to a legal purchaser. Apparently the store should have known that this purchaser had a propensity to resell guns from his private collection, which is perfectly legal as long as it is not a business. That customer, Stanley Woznicki, also a defendant, resold the gun at a show operated by McMann's Roadrunner Inc., who, you guessed it, is also a defendant.
From there it is unclear from whom Tom Prasertphong, convicted in connection with the murders along with accomplice Christopher Huerstel, actually obtained the gun. Police believe he purchased the weapon at the gun show in question, but not necessarily from Mr. Woznicki. An unknown straw purchaser probably sold the gun to Prasertphong, a prohibited minor at the time.
So the big question is, how is Glock liable for negligence? What exactly did they do that was unlawful, unreasonable and careless? The answer is nothing. No defects in the weapon have been alleged. They made a well-manufactured legal product and sold it to a licensed dealer. That's it.
Do families of innocent victims of DUI fatalities sue Ford and GM for wrongful deaths? Of course not. Unless there is a specific flaw in manufacture or design, the car companies cannot be held liable for the misconduct of their customers.
For an attorney to even attempt to bring such a suit would be a tremendous disservice to his client. Encouraging the client to endure a prolonged, arduous court battle that has little or no hope of success is bad practice. Plaintiffs' attorneys and anti-Second Amendment advocates think nothing of manipulating the tort system to advance their political agendas and personal financial gain. Meanwhile the ordeal will leave their clients with nothing but more painful memories.
What worked on tobacco companies won't work on gun manufacturers. Want to know why? Three words: Smith and Wesson. After cutting a deal in lawsuits brought by the Clinton-Reno justice department, they saw sales plummet. Did quality decrease or prices increase? No. Smith and Wesson made the biggest mistake of all-betrayal.
They clearly underestimated just how intensely loyal people who buy firearms are to preserving our precious Second Amendment freedoms. Gun manufacturers will fight these suits to the bitter end and they will win, as they have against cities like Atlanta in similar suits.
With the freedom to bear arms comes great responsibilities. The framers of the Constitution knew that, and it was a testament of their faith in the people to include it among the enumerated rights. Gun makers, gun dealers, gun users and law enforcement share in this responsibility.
The police should use any available effort to enforce gun laws on the books, and straw purchasers knowingly selling guns to minors or felons should be prosecuted.
However, holding Glock responsible for the deaths of these victims is preposterous. Their memories are dishonored by lawyers believe that the tort system is the key to bringing down a protected constitutional freedom.
