Living in California, one is subject* to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is seemingly dominated by crazy people. Their latest seems to assert that California law can be used to find damages against companies for actions that occur in other states -- essentially making people and companies in other states subject to California law. The fact that the issue at hand is guns makes it all the more likely that the rest of the decision is bullshit, too.
Clayton Cramer rightiously fisks the (2-1) 9th Circuit decision in Ileto v Glock in which Glock is lambasted by the court for its evil practice of selling guns to legal purchasers, such as police departments. Apparently, Glock fails to make sure that legal purchasers of firearms do not later resell them, through a chain of equally legal purchasers, to people who might later commit crimes. The court goes so far as to suggest that Glock should not sell guns to gun dealers if some guns previously sold to those dealers are used in crimes by 3rd parties.
These events happened in Washington State. The nutbar in question later drove down to California and killed someone and shot others. The victims and survivors are suing Glock for negligence in Washington State under California law (Washington's law was apparently not working out for them). The idiocies of this decision are many, too many to list here. Go read Cramer. Eugene Volokh also has a good half dozen posts on the subject -- start here. Professor Volokh also believes that the decision is both inane and pretty much unappealable.
*Subject: One who is under the rule of another or others, e.g. a British subject is under the rule of the British monarch.