FAMILY OF SLAIN U.S. POSTAL WORKER VICTIMIZED AGAIN
Supreme Court Allows Congress to Close Courthouse Door on Victims of Gun Violence

Washington, D.C.—Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court denied review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision dismissing claims against Glock, Inc. and RSR brought by Lilian Ileto, mother of Joseph Santos Ileto, following his murder by white supremacist Buford Furrow. Furrow used a Glock 26 "pocket rocket" and to murder Ileto after a shooting rampage in 1999 at the North Valley Jewish Community Center. During that rampage, Burrow shot several children, a camp counselor, and a staff member with a China North knock-off of the Uzi known as the Norinco Model 320.

At the time of the shootings, Furrow - a convicted felon and former licensed firearms dealer - was prohibited by law from buying firearms and illegally in possession of an arsenal, including thousands of rounds of ammunition. Plaintiff Lilian Ileto and a number of the survivors of the tragedy sued the manufacturers and sellers of the firearms used by Furrow in the shootings, alleging atht they distribute firearms intending to facilitate purchae and possession of firearms by prohibited persons. This, they argued, is part of a broader marketing strategy to sustain the criminals market for firearms, on which the gun industry depends for nearly a quarter of its sales.

In 2003, after Ileto v. Glock wsa initially dismissed by the trial court, the Ninth Circuit reinstated the claims against Glock, RSR, China North and others, finding that, "Although gun manufacturing is legal and the sale of guns is regulated by state and federal law, the distribution and marketing of guns in a way that creates and contributes to a danger to the public generally and to the plaintiffs in particular is not permitted under law." The court went on to say, " Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts for a reasonable jury to condlude that through their distribution practices, defendants have created an illegal secondary market targeting prohibited purchasers that placed plaintiffs in a situation in which they were exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm through the reasonably forseeable conduct of a prohibited purchaser like Furrow."

Subsequently, in 2005, Congress enacted a law to shield members of the firearms industry from lawsuits by shooting victims. During debate, Members of Congress specifically identified the Ileto case as an intended target of the law. The trial court then retroactively applied the immunity law to Lilian Ileto's claims against Glock and RSR, dismissing them, and the Ninth Circuit upheld this dismissal.

It is from that decision that Lilian Ileto sought review in the Supreme Court, which denied her petition yesterday. The remaining victims' claims against China North were not dismissed because the immunity law applies only to federally-licensed firearms industry members and China North does not hold such a license.

Expressing his anger and dismay at the Supreme Court's decision, Joseph Ileto's brother, Ishmael Ileto, asked, "How is it possible that in American companies like Glock are now free to market and distribute their firearms without regard to how their irresponsible methods increase the risk of gun violence?"

Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (Ed Fund) Executive Director Josh Horwitz said, "The firearms immunity law is nothing more than special interest legislation. If the firearms industry aided by the NRA can get Congress to wipe out common law remedies for injured victims, who is next? No injured plaintiff should have the courthouse door shut in her face after establishing a right to pursue her claims simply because the defendant is a member of a favored industry."

The case against China North will continue in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs are represented by the firms of Berger & Montague P.C.; Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP; and the Ed Fund.