21 June 2003
This editorial misses the point. While I agree that the gun seller should probably be brought to task for this weapon (remember this is the store that "lost" 100 weapons a year) the manufacturer should be immune. What the article fails to realize (I hope not purposefully overlook) is that the point of all these cases is to hit as often and as hard as possible on as many fronts as possible with the eventual intent of badly harming the manufacturers who do not control the actions of others after the product is shipped and cannot possibly monitor the actions of every single retailer.
Even those who don't have an agenda are drawn to the manufacturer every single time because it has deeper pockets. The manufacturer is forced to defend nationwide and even if 99% of the cases are dismissed that's going to cost the innocent manufacturer a lot of money and could drive many out of business.
Author: Ken Lammers on 6/21/2003