Next time someone mentions gun rights

[hack89]

27. And here is a suit that is proceeding

LOS ANGELES -- A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer's product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.

Enrique Chavez was paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him with his service pistol.

The lawsuit claims the .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol lacks adequate safeguards against accidental discharge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/enrique-chavezs-lawsuit-glock_n_1701930.html

here is another suit

BOSTON — A Massachusetts gun maker has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to the families of one man who was killed and another man who was wounded in a shooting involving a gun said to have been stolen from the company, a national gun-control group announced Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/gun-maker-settles-wrongful-death-lawsuit/#ixzz2KDqkVbwJ

And another:

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — A former high school athlete who was shot in 2003 may sue the companies that made and distributed the handgun used in the crime under an appellate court ruling that gun control advocates say will keep irresponsible gun makers and sellers from taking advantage of a federal law shielding them from lawsuits.

The ruling by the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s 2011 dismissal of victim Daniel Williams’ complaint, which accused Ohio gun maker Hi-Point and distributor MKS Supply Inc. of Ohio of intentionally supplying handguns to irresponsible dealers because they profited from sales to the criminal gun market.

The appellate panel said the Buffalo man’s lawsuit should have been allowed to move forward because Williams’ claims fall within exceptions contained in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/09/ny-appeal-court-rules-shooting-victim-may-sue-gun-maker/

The reason why the case you give as an example was rejected is here - note how the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize a blanket immunity?:

While a lower state court allowed that claim to proceed, the Illinois Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit altogether. It ruled that, because Billy had intentionally aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, the incident did not come within the exception Congress had made to the lawsuit ban.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/08/tracking-new-cases-suing-gun-makers/