Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case Against Gun Maker...

[spin]

NEWTOWN, Conn. --(AmmoLand.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.

This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center’s failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms — a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.

The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.

Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal remarked,

“And so ends a long legal battle — from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer’s Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son.”
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/12/15/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-against-gun-maker/

[sharesunited]

1. Gun love obviously extends to gun makers.

[krispos42]

2. It really is an unjustified lawsuit

Gun makers don't sell direct to the public; they sell directly to large retailers, or wholesalers that distribute them to small retailers. The guns get into public hands via the retailers, who do the necessary background checks and whatever else the law requires.

They aren't liable for their products getting into the wrong hands either legally or illegally. They're only responsable for a manufacturing or design flaw, as it should be.

[iverglas]

35. c'mon there, get a clue

Do you (or anybody else here) have any actual idea of what the basis of the action was?

It had nothing to do with anything getting into any hands. Although you might note that the legislation in question purportedly does allow actions on that basis, where a party is alleged to have been negligent in allowing something to get into some hannds.


They're only responsable for a manufacturing or design flaw, as it should be.

And that's what the action was about. Maybe read something about it?

[eqfan592]

45. You should take your own advice about "reading something" about it.

Not including a magazine safety is not a "design flaw" but a "design choice," just like a auto manufacture deciding to include ABS or not, except ABS is far more useful IMHO.

[iverglas]

62. no, you read something about it

I already had.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-397

FYI

... (b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended. ...

... (5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

... (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or ...

Now. If a manufacturer does not follow common industry practice by including an inexpensive feature in a product to avoid the possibility of harm as a result of unskilled use, is there a defect in its design or manufacture?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10685&page=35

As a motivating factor for industry to adopt best practices, tort law can be a significant complement to standard-setting, because compliance with industry-wide standards is usually an acceptable demonstration of due care.

Is non-compliance with industry-wide standards a demonstration of absence of due care?

Not a question for a court? Why not?

Josh’s parents sued Beretta in the Circuit Court of Illinois, alleging that the firearm was unreasonably dangerous as Beretta failed to include effective warnings that indicated to foreseeable users when a round remained in the chamber or that alerted users that the gun could fire when its magazine was removed, and failed to include a magazine disconnect safety, a $10 device invented a century earlier to prevent precisely these sorts of accidents from occurring.

Now don't let anyone be heard saying that the boy who fired the gun was not a foreseeable user. ;)

If he weren't, what need would there be for all this legislation??

[ManiacJoe]

122. The problem here is ignorance of the specific and general product.

Berettas do have a "chamber loaded" indicator, and they have had it for ages. However, if you do not know what to look for, you may not understand what you see since many handguns do not have a "chamber loaded" indicator, and since those that do have it implement it differently.

The correct procedure when handling any gun is to first verify its state of readiness, which usually involves ignoring any possible "chamber loaded" indicator and physically checking the chamber.

Magazine disconnects, often wrongly referred to as "magazine safeties", are also not standard features on handguns as very few models have them. Many handgun owners, maybe most owners, consider them to be liabilities. While there are a few specific circumstances where you might try to disable the handgun by ejecting the magazine, the more common scenario is to be in the middle of a reload and need to fire the still chambered round before you can get the full magazine back into the gun.

[iverglas]

125. post 99

I know, you people are the real experts and the only ones whose opinions matter. Whatever.

[eqfan592]

129. Ahhh, so just because your experts are full of shit...

...and we call them out as such, we think that only "our" opinions mater and we think that "we" are the "real" experts. Very nice, Iverglas.

Your post 99 is a better argument against your case than it is for it. So please, keep informing people of it. ;)

[ManiacJoe]

136. Lucky me. I covered both points in #122.

And did so accurately.

[Retired AF Dem]

200. Since you don't know shit about guns

except for what you can find on Google, why should you have any say on the subject?

[spin]

46. With all your legal expertise...

let me ask you...

Should manufacturing a 638 hp Corvette for street use be legal?

This has nothing to do with the topic. Just curious.

[iverglas]

63. you're right

It has nothing to do with the topic. Not eevn what you might have thought it had.

[spin]

69. Nice side step...

You may have problems with your eyesight, but you still move well.

[tburnsten]

194. How is a cop not securing his pistol a manufacturing or design flaw?

How is a cop's teenage son stealing his gun and shooting another kid a manufacturing or design flaw? Unless you think that manufacturing the pistol in the first place was somehow negligent, that doesn't make any sense.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. So manufactures should be held liable for unlawful use of thier products?

Given of course that the product itself does have a variety of legal uses...

[sharesunited]

6. Strict tort liability. It kills or injures, the maker pays.

[eqfan592]

11. Bullshit.

We aren't talking about a product that's malfunctioning. A person walking down the street and killed by a drunk driver wasn't killed because of any sort of manufacturer defect. They were killed because of the actions of a particular individual. Same the applies to firearms. Thus no legal liability on the part of the manufacturer.

[sharesunited]

13. More importantly: No Legal Liability Because Of Gun Love Codified. Yes?

[Katya Mullethov]

14. Define the defect

What inherent design flaw did it possess ?

[sharesunited]

17. No flaw. It worked perfectly.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. So you want the police to have service weapons that cannot kill or maim?

Actually, to be fair, I expect you would prefer he just not take his service weapon home with him.

[gorfle]

56. Exactly. Thank you.

Thank you for admitting that the firearms under discussion had no inherent flaw, and worked perfectly.

Thus any wrongdoing liability should rest squarely with the person who did wrong.

[eqfan592]

16. More Importantly: You've just essentially admitted that you have no good counter argument.

Thanks sharesunited. It's taken you a long time, but you've finally admitted you have no logical arguments to offer to support your position.

[sharesunited]

18. What position? I simply made an observation that the Court has once again missed an opportunity.

It did so willfully, motivated by gun love.

[slackmaster]

21. Actually, the PLCAA was a response to a long series of frivolous and SLAPP lawsuits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

[sharesunited]

25. Translation: Carry On Dying Ya'All.

[eqfan592]

28. Ummmm, no.

Translation: You've been smacked down with logic and have nothing to come back with, so now it's back to appeals to emotion.

[slackmaster]

42. What complete nonsense

:nuke:

[Euromutt]

158. Change the fucking record already

I know you're very enamored of your little platitudinous soundbite, but it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. Premature deaths occur every single day and from the improper use of any number of man-made items. More people die from poisonings (37,286 in 2006) than die from gunshot wounds (30,896 in 2006), and unlike the GSWs, the overwhelming majority of those poisonings (27,504 or ~73.8%) aren't even intentional. The same goes for the leading traumatic cause of death, motor vehicle traffic; 43,664 in 2006, all but 153 unintentional. Compare that to 642 unintentional deaths from GSWs that same year.

Why does intent matter? Because in the case of intentionally inflicted injury, you can never say with complete certainty that "but for the presence of the item causing injury, this death would not have occurred." Where the intent exists to inflict fatal injury--be it to oneself or another--there exists the likelihood of "method substitution"; that if one method is not (readily) available, another will be found. The very fact that people--including Americans--kill themselves or others using methods other than firearms is sufficient evidence that eradicating firearms would not stop suicide and homicide all together, and there is no reason to assume that deprived of firearms, Americans wouldn't go on killing themselves and each other at comparable rates by other means.

A study published in 1997 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/mw745335u0468647/) reported that:

Adjusted homicide data suggest that Russia has a higher spousal homicide rate, more female victims, and fewer shootings than the United States. Women in Russia may be two and one-half times more likely to be killed by their spouses or lovers than their counterparts in the United States.

Fewer shootings, yet more victims. Apparently stabbing is the most common method of murdering one's spouse in the Russian Federation.

The Russian homicide rate in the first half of this decade was about four times that of the United States. Admittedly, while there are probably several million illegal firearms knocking about the former Soviet Union, but given that these cost the equivalent of $500 (for a pistol) to $3,000 (for an AK-pattern assault rifle, the automatic fire-capable kind) on the black market, most Russians couldn't afford one. However, the availability of black market firearms is a product of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and even during the period 1965-1991 (when the Soviet Union still existed), the homicide rate was either close to or higher than that of the US.

And as I've repeatedly pointed out, the homicide rate in the English Home Counties in the first half of the 14th century was a multiple of even the American homicide rate in the early 1990s; and at that time, there weren't even any man-portable firearms! Throughout history, the willingness to kill has played a much larger role in determining the body count from interpersonal violence (as opposed to, say, artillery or aerial bombing) than the means.

[SteveM]

162. Hmm. What's with this "Ya'All" thing? Are we all Southerners?...

Or is it just another of sharesunited's attempt at prejudiced remarks? BTW, the proper way to express the term is "y'all."

[Euromutt]

198. Just the usual attempt to frame RKBA proponents as uneducated yokels

It's a lot easier than trying to come up with a reasoned argument, which is why sharesunited is by no means the only one to resort to that particular tactic on this forum.

[eqfan592]

23. Or logic and reason. But call it what you want. :P (nt)

[jeepnstein]

29. Opportunity for what?

Do you think the Courts should be allowed to dictate law based on their personal whims? Or should they only do it based on your feelings?

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly a part of the Constitution. Should we suspend the entire Bill of Rights just to spare your delicate feelings?

[sharesunited]

49. How about some narrow construction? That's really what is needed.

Keep and bear does not need to mean allowing unlimited production and sale.

Well regulated militia could perfectly constrain the wanton proliferation.

The Court should rule for the common good, not just for the benefit of arms dealers and gun lovers.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. The court should uphold the laws. Period.

the 2A has been defined by the SCOTUS time and time again. If you feel the laws are not in the best interests of the common good, there are many ways to petition or campaign to have them changed. The legal system allows for this - changing of laws to better serve public welfare. This is how America works.

The courts dont write the laws, they only uphold them. No "opportunities" were missed here. :eyes:
Unless, of course, you speak of the opportunity to misinterperet legislation regarding this case.
In that case, yes... The courts missed an opportunity to screw up a decision.

[sharesunited]

61. The Courts define constitutionality and set tone.

As you might recall, there was a time when persons of different races were prohibited by law from marrying.

The courts fixed that. And they can fix this.

[PavePusher]

95. The courts upheld what the Constitution had been ammended to.

And forced localities to abide by it. (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 24)

They did not redefine what the Constitution said. That's not how it works.

[jeepnstein]

140. Why is that needed?

Do you think that lawful citizens should only be able to exercise their right to keep and bear the kind of arms that are generally in use by our regular soldiers on the battlefield? Do you understand what "well regulated" means?

And what of self defense? Do lawful citizens have the right to defend themselves? How would you propose they do that without access to arms?

[Caliman73]

181. The court decided correctly based on the law.

That it did not choose to ignore the law and legislate from the bench, a prejudice that you have, sounds more like a personal problem you need to work out.

[rd_kent]

36. Wow, you are quite obtuse and disingenuous, arent you?

Why does anyone even bother with you.

[slackmaster]

19. So the car manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by drunk or negligent drivers

Right.

[virginia mountainman]

31. Yea, apply that standard to Automobiles too!

Not to mention THOUSANDS of other common household items...

Should the public water authority be held to the same standard, when someone drowns in a bathtub..

Really shares, why can't you see the folly of your and Sara Brady's republican logic?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. That statement is so ridiculous

that most would consider it flaimbait or trolling... well, at least until they determined it was you that made it.

Seriously, that's some fucked up logic.
Knives, Guns, cars, plastic bags, electricity, swimming pools, ... just about anything...
if "it kills or injures, the maker pays"
Oh brother. :eyes:

[spin]

5. So if some teenage boy steals his father's 638 horsepower ZR1 Corvette ...

and kills someone while attempting to drive it, Corvette should be sued.

Bullshit.

[sharesunited]

7. A Corvette isn't manufactured for the purpose of killing.

[eqfan592]

9. Nor is a gun.

It's purpose is to launch a projectile at high velocity. Choice of the target is up to the user. In some ways this is similar to a car. A car can drive smoothly down the road, or drive down a crowded sidewalk. Either way, the manufactures of guns and cars should not be held responsible for what people decide to use them for.

[PavePusher]

10. They are certainly very capable of fulfilling that function.... n/t

[slackmaster]

22. So much for your "strict tort liability" canard

:rofl:

[gorfle]

57. Hey! See post #6 on that "strict tort liability"

Strict tort liability. It kills or injures, the maker pays.

"It kills or injures, the maker pays". Your words, Sharesunited, your words.

[PavePusher]

8. Perhaps you can explain...

in small words, for those of us who use logic, how the manufacturer held any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son?

[sharesunited]

15. They made a product designed to kill and put it into commerce. Simple as that.

But Congressional gun love protected them.

[taurus145]

20. You're amazing

It's a damn good thing that those people you spout shouldn't be allowed firearms are exactly the people whose private gun ownership won you the right and freedom to spout your bile. Have you ever considered that?

Please try to avoid the old "That was then" saw. Freedom applies equally if not more so today.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. If it FAILED to kill or maim, I would sue.

Hard to sue for something that works as advertised.

[spin]

30. Let's ignore the fact that firearms are designed and produced for many legitimate reasons.

including target shooting and hunting.

Let's just consider the use of firearms for self defense.

A handgun like the snub nosed revolver I carry is a weapon primarily designed for this purpose. You can shoot it at the range, but no target shooters do in Bullseye competition. You could possibly kill a deer with it, but I know of no hunters who hunt with a snub nosed .38 revolver. This firearm is designed for self defense.

Is it designed to kill? If so, it fails. A 12 gauge shotgun or a high powered rifle is a much better killing weapon. The snub nosed revolver is designed to stop an attack. Often, no shots are fired and yet the snubbie accomplishes its intended purpose. Frequently, if shots are fired in self defense, the attacker is wounded but survives.

Is self defense a legitimate use of a weapon? Throughout history self defense HAS been legal in certain circumstances.

The snub nosed revolver has proven to be an excellent product for this purpose. A physically impaired or small individual can often use one to good effect against a far larger and stronger attacker. In fact, it may prove to be successful in stopping an attack by an opponent who also has a firearm.

Can this same revolver be misused by a criminal? Of course. A butcher knife is designed to be used in the kitchen, but many have been used to murder as can a baseball bat or a screwdriver.

If your argument was that a firearm was designed only to MURDER, you would have a good argument.

[iverglas]

38. sorry, sharesunited

but you need to read the facts of the case and maybe the law too.

There is an argument to be made against the decision of the Court in this case, but
They made a product designed to kill and put it into commerce. Simple as that.
is not it.

[slackmaster]

48. Killing is a legitimate purpose, sometimes people need to be killed or intimidated

Why do you think police officers carry firearms?

[paulsby]

106. because of "gun love"

obviously.

it's the same reason i support right to choose.

i love abortions.

i also support the right of criminal robbery defendants, even if guilty as fuck, to have a defense attorney

i love robbers.

wow. yer logick is phun

[iverglas]

34. and maybe you can explain,

Perhaps you can explain...
in small words, for those of us who use logic, how the manufacturer held any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son?

in any kind of words you like, for those of us who still hold some respect for truth, who said it did.

[eqfan592]

41. Sharesunited, post 6.

" Strict tort liability. It kills or injures, the maker pays." He makes no qualifications with his statement, which means it can easily be interpreted to mean just that.

[iverglas]

55. funny, that came after

And nothing sharesunited might say has anything at all to do with the cause of action alleged in this case.

[eqfan592]

58. Share's post is post 6.

Pave's is post 8. Since when is 6 after 8? And while you may be correct in your second statement, your statement is irrelevant given that Pave was responding to shares response to this posting, not to the case as a whole.

[iverglas]

64. the post I replied to was a reply to post 1

All clear now?


post ... not pot

[eqfan592]

71. Because Pave decided to reply to a different post...

...does not change the fact that his post occurred AFTER the post I was speaking about. Your initial objection was that Pave's post occurred after the one I mentioned, which was factually incorrect. You are welcome to change your objection (and this makes change number 2), but it doesn't change the fact that both of your initial objections were wrong.

[iverglas]

78. yeah

And when I say "fuck off" in a post called a "reply" to yours, I'm actually talking to the jerk using the noisy snowblower outside my window at midnight.

[iverglas]

82. and anyhow, of course

none of your tripping of the light fantastic has substantiated the false premise in old PavePusher's post -- the assertion made in the "question", that sharesunited had claimed that

the manufacturer held any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son

since the post you're so fixated on - post 6 - says:

Strict tort liability. It kills or injures, the maker pays.

So old PavePusher was just making shit up and pretending it was true. I think that's what I said in the first place, and nothing you've said yet seems to have anything to do with reality, does it?

[eqfan592]

86. Just because you say something is "reality"

doesn't make it so, iverglas. If there's one thing you're good at it's stating your opinions as fact. This post is a perfect example of it.

[iverglas]

89. just because you burble out some noise

doesn't mean your posts contain any sense.


We have reality:

sharesunited: Strict tort liability. It kills or injures, the maker pays.

(Not that this is what PavePusher replied to, but I'll humour you.)

PavePusher: Perhaps you can explain... in small words, for those of us who use logic, how the manufacturer held any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son?


You know what I see?

A disconnect!!! Hahahahahaha!

sharesunited did not say that the manufacturer held responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son.

PavePusher used the nasty, ugly, right-wing, cowardly rhetorical trick of asking a question loaded with a false premise in order to convey the impression that someone had said something they didn't say.

The practice is just so prevalent hereabouts, and so many of you people engage in it, that either you don't recognize it or you just keep hoping nobody else will.

[eqfan592]

92. You mean he used a "strawman?"

Given the context of what we were discussing, as well as Share's previous comments both on this and other topics, I don't think Pave's question qualifies as a strawman.

[iverglas]

96. lordy

I already told you what it was.

It wasn't a "strawman argument", because he didn't even attempt to demolish it.

It was a LOADED QUESTION.

A hopefully simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Loaded question, also known as complex question, presupposition, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. An example of this is the question "Are you still beating your wife/husband?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a spouse, and having beaten them at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

How does a person who HAS NEVER SAID that the manufacturer held any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son answer the question:

Perhaps you can explain... in small words, for those of us who use logic, how the manufacturer held any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son?

Of course, it isn't actually a question, notwithstanding the punctuation at the end. It is a statement. It says that sharesunited may be able to explain something. In this case, all sharesunited needed to say was: nope, you're wrong, I can't explain that.

Had it been framed as the truly loaded question it was plainly intended as -- How did the manufacturer hold any responsibility for the actions of the gun owner and son? -- the only proper answer would, of course, have been: Mu.


But hey, thanks for the confirmation that pretty much nobody here does have a clue what a "strawman argument" is. It's been obvious for quite a while.

[eqfan592]

103. I never said it was a "straw man argument."

And it is not an uncommon practice to use a loaded question in setting up a "straw man" for a "straw man" argument.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. So now you care about the truth? Then maybe you can explain where I solicited applause for death.

[benEzra]

12. So an officer leaves his department issue pistol where his kid can access it,

his kid disengages the safety, points it at his friend, and pulls the trigger, and it's Beretta's fault?

The gun was not defective; guns are supposed to fire when you disengage the safeties and pull the trigger. I see two things that were defective---(1) the officer's storage practices and (2) the lack of gun-safety training of his son.

Even my 8-year-old can grasp the concept that you never, ever, ever, ever even allow a gun to point at another person, never mind flipping the safety off, pointing, and pulling the trigger. Apparently in addition to failing to secure the gun, the father took the "abstinence only" approach to gun safety, and the combination of the two ended in tragedy.

[iverglas]

67. here ya go

Happy to keep quoting it for anybody in need.

The gun, however, did not contain one of several commonplace safety features that warned users when a round remained in the chamber or prevented the gun from firing when “unloaded” in this fashion. Believing the gun was unloaded, Billy pulled the trigger, and the bullet hidden in the chamber killed his friend Josh.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Commonplace my ass.

None of my pistols, from any manufacturer, have that feature.

Nor would the presence of such a feature excuse the criminally negligent practice of pointing an unfamiliar firearm at another human being and pulling the trigger.


The assertion that a magazine disconnect is 'commonplace' is highly spurious. I suppose the Brady bunch is sitting on some statistical evidence to back that statement up?

[iverglas]

107. post 99

Nor would the presence of such a feature excuse the criminally negligent practice of pointing an unfamiliar firearm at another human being and pulling the trigger.

That's nice. Did someone say it would?


The assertion that a magazine disconnect is 'commonplace' is highly spurious. I suppose the Brady bunch is sitting on some statistical evidence to back that statement up?

Are you as blind as everybody else?

The gun, however, did not contain one of several commonplace safety features that warned users when a round remained in the chamber OR prevented the gun from firing when “unloaded” in this fashion.

Is this helping at all???

What's with the selective vision?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AdamesCertPetAppendix082309FINAL.pdf

Do read it for yourself.

Billy picked up the Beretta, he pushed a button that released the magazine. Billy could see the bullets in the magazine. Billy then put the magazine back in the Beretta. Billy moved the slide at the top of the gun and a bullet popped out. Billy again removed the magazine and put the bullet back in the magazine. Billy repeatedly removed and replaced the bullets and magazine from the gun. Billy knew that the Beretta was loaded when the magazine was in the gun, but thought it was unloaded when the magazine was taken out. He thought that the bullet came out of the top of the magazine when the handgun was fired, and did not know that a bullet remained in the chamber. Billy did not read the instruction manual for the Beretta.

... Billy showed Josh the guns and the boys began playing around. While Billy was holding the Beretta, Josh tried to reach for it to take it out of Billy's hand. Billy pushed the but-ton on the Beretta, took the magazine out and put it in his pocket. At this point, Josh was by the front door. Billy pretended that he was firing the gun, then pulled the trigger, discharging the gun.

Cripey cripes. Anybody want to miss this again now?

A summary of the father's testimony starts at page 5a.

Expert Testimony

Plaintiffs presented experts in their case against Beretta to testify that the Beretta 92FS was unrea-sonably dangerous. Stanton Berg, a firearms consultant, testified that a magazine disconnect device would have prevented the shooting in this case. The magazine disconnect was invented in 1910 and dis-ables a semiautomatic pistol from firing when the magazine is removed. Berg testified that Beretta produced and sold Beretta 92 Series handguns with a magazine disconnect for use by police departments such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the United States Veterans Administration and the correctional department of New York City. Berg noted more than 300 other models of handguns that incorporate a magazine disconnect safety, and testified that, in his opinion, any handgun without a magazine disconnect is defective. In addition, Berg testified that, in the absence of a magazine disconnect, the Beretta required a good chamber-loaded indicator. Berg said that the chamber-loaded indicator on the Beretta 92FS was not sufficient to warn a user that the chamber had a bullet in it because the user could hardly see the indicator. Berg also believed that the Beretta required a warning on the weapon stating that it was capable of being fired with the magazine removed.

Wallace Collins, a firearms and ammunition design and safety expert, also testified on behalf of plaintiffs that the Beretta was unnecessarily dangerous. Collins stated that the Beretta required a magazine disconnect safety; a warning that the gun would fire when the magazine was removed; a marking to make plain what the chamber-loaded indicator means; a chamber-loaded indicator in an optimum position; and a key lock. Collins testified that the chamber-loaded indicator on the Beretta was not well de-signed. Collins said that the safety features required were readily available, inexpensive, and commercially feasible.

[eqfan592]

116. "Expert testimoney?" Really?

Hardly. Experts at bullshit maybe, but that's about it.

There is nothing defective about a firearm without a magazine disconnect, and in fact there can be something VERY defective about a firearm with one, which is why they are not very popular, in spite of California's laws. Also, I love how Mr. Collins states that the Beretta required a magazine disconnect safety AND a warning that the gun would fire with the magazine was removed. Which is it, Mr. Wallace? If you have one, what need would you have of the other?


It's no wonder this case wasn't heard with "expert" testimony such as this.

[ManiacJoe]

141. The Beretta 92 works just like every other semi-auto handgun.

If the boy failed to understand this basic working of the Beretta, he would have failed with the same deadly consequences with every other semi-auto. Yes, there are a few handgun models that have the magazine disconnects, but they still load and fire the same way every other semi-auto does.

And the Beretta 92/96 series has always had a "loaded chamber" indicator, maybe not always painted red, but my 1994 version has the red paint.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. The 'expert testimony' is crap.

A pistol without a magazine disconnect is not defective. It is MORE RELIABLE.

If it HAD a magazine disconnect, and the weapon fired, then I could see a case there. But this pistol is not equipped with that OPTIONAL feature that many firearm owners would not wish to purchase.

And the loaded chamber indicator is silly, this kid would have NEVER understood the LCI on my Springfield, if he was so damn stupid as to not know there was a cartridge still in the chamber, to say nothing of pointing a gun at a human and pulling the trigger as a joke. (I have not investigated another poster's claims that this model did in fact have an LCI)

Stupid kills. Unfortunately, sometimes it kills an innocent bystander.

[slackmaster]

163. I own two pistols that have magazine disconnect safeties

A Belgian "Baby" Browning, caliber .25 ACP, made in 1920, and a later pistol of the same pattern that was marketed as the Colt Vest Pocket .25.

Both are beautifully made and interesting as collector's items, but I wouldn't even think of relying on either for self-defense. The caliber is far too weak to reliably stop a person, and the guns are mechanically too complicated.

The State of California now requires such a safety on new models introduced for sale here. The law was passed for political reasons unrelated to public safety, as there is no evidence that such a device makes anyone safer. The fact that they have been available for almost 100 years yet never caught on in the free market provides ample proof that they are not useful.

[iverglas]

178. hardly

The fact that they have been available for almost 100 years yet never caught on in the free market provides ample proof that they are not useful.

What a bizarre tihng to say.

They are not "useful" for the owner's purposes. The public's purposes are sometimes different.

All the devices used to scrub the stuff being spewed out of Inco's smelter in Sudbury aren't useful to Inco, but they sure as hell are to the public. I doubt that Inco would have spent all that money on them if the sole criterion were their usefulness to Inco.

The features in question are apparently not wanted by a majority of the gun-buying public. Sometimes, the answer to people who want or don't want something is: tough.

I actually do not claim that this is one of those instances. I just point out that your statement is really not a statement of the be-all and end-all considerations in making public policy or imposing requirements on consumer goods.

[AtheistCrusader]

184. But we aren't strictly speaking about a consumer good here.

We are talking about a tool of war, purchased by a police department for law enforcement use. That it is otherwise available to the public doesn't really change anything. (also the question of whether a police officer should take that weapon home is beyond the scope of this court case)

Substitute a private citizen for the police officer that made this pistol available to a child, and then your point would make more sense. But that was not the question before the court.

[iverglas]

186. I think I've addressed this

There are paradoxes and internal contradictions in this whole cop uses own gun for work / cop takes work gun home that my head doesn't reach around.

It strikes me that the manufacturer knew as well as I do that cops in the US buy their own guns / take their guns home. The member of the public / cop distinction then becomes rather irrelevant. Everybody knows the firearms are going to be kept outside police premises.

The questions before the Supreme Court actually had nothing to do with this, again.

[AtheistCrusader]

188. But yet

The police departments that procure it have requirements, much like the US militiary on what features it wants, and what features it will reject. I think it would be interesting, and I haven't seen it sourced out, but I would be curious if THAT particular police department had a policy regarding magazine disconnects, or if perhaps they have no policy, and just follow along with the purchasing policies of other police departments.

[iverglas]

190. it's a law school exam question

What can I say.

[iverglas]

174. whatever ...

The 'expert testimony' is crap.

That is ordinarily a matter left to a judge or jury, trier of fact, to decide.

Just not in this case.

[AtheistCrusader]

175. If it didn't meet my bar for 'frivolous', I would be concerned.

But it does. As another poster pointed out, police departments often require a pistol without this feature, for safety reasons.

So, in all probability, if this case had merit, the Police Department could be found to have equal responsibility.



But I am comfortable with the idea the suit was totally frivolous, and should be denied.

[iverglas]

176. well, whatever

As another poster pointed out, police departments often require a pistol without this feature, for safety reasons.

And as one of the expert witnesses pointed out, some Canadian police services require it. I don't know how I'd verify that assertion, but I'll take it at face value unless disproved.

Again: a matter for the trier of fact to decide in all other cases.


So, in all probability, if this case had merit, the Police Department could be found to have equal responsibility.

The police chief or some such was initially joined as a defendant. I'd have to go scrounging through the documents again to find out the basis, but I doubt it was that. I can't get my head around the idea of a police officer taking a service weapon home, is my problem. The way it works where I'm at, there are service weapons, which are carried solely while on duty, and everything else. So if the police wanted firearms w/o magazine disconnects, the same issues would simply not arise as might be present in firearms available to the public.


But I am comfortable with the idea the suit was totally frivolous, and should be denied.

But you have figured out that this was not the ground on which it was dismissed, right?


formatting fixed

[GreenStormCloud]

179. That is common here.

I can't get my head around the idea of a police officer taking a service weapon home

Here, that is the normal case. Many police departments even allow the officer to choose their own weapon. So one may see a variety of arms being carried by local officers. Further, LEOs are expected to carry concealed when off-duty.

[iverglas]

180. yes, I'm well aware

That would be why I referred to it. It really is bizarre.

See post 172.

[oneshooter]

191. Why is it bizarre?

Most if not all LEO's in the states are concidered to be "on duty" 24-7.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

183. I am aware of that.

I mentioned criminally negligent earlier. (Actually, that was incorrect, it's based on Criminal Manslaughter, not negligence, but the effect is the same) Protection of Lawful Commerce Act trumps.

I'm used to legal wrangling getting things thrown out for various reasons other than the bare merits of the case. Happens all the time. Sometimes, in ways we might consider beneficial to an individual defendent, not a corporation.


On police officers taking service weapons home, many police departments require police officers to carry at all times, even off duty. Probably a cultural difference betwen the US and Canada. I can speculate on WHY we require that, but I do not know the origins. Only that this was the impetus behind our federal concealed carry law that applies to all peace officers. I would not expect an officer that is required to carry a firearm at all times, to carry something other than their duty weapon, unless concealability was the issue. Most of our police officers take home their service vehicles as well. (complete with Shotgun and/or AR-15.)

[paulsby]

110. as a firearms instructor...

those are crap.

in fact, it is in our SOP, and it comes down to this

you don't rely on a "commonplace safety feature" to determine whether or not a gun is loaded.

the ONLY way to determine that, that is 100% reliable, is to check the chamber

period.

if i saw any recruit or officer use such a feature on their gun, and RELY on that, they would get remedial training.

it's amazing how many people are shot by "unloaded guns".

i wouldn't trust MY life on the indicator either way]

iow, if the indicator said the gun was loaded, that's not enough. i check the chamber. so i know i have one in the chamber before going to work

if the indicator says it isn't loaded, i'm not going to test that by pulling the trigger. i'm going to check the chamber

that's firearm safety 101

[spin]

131. You never rely on a mechanical device for safety with a firearm

you check and double check. If the firearm leaves your hands, you check it again when you pick it up.

And you assume the firearm is LOADED until you prove otherwise.

But to be safe, you keep your finger of the trigger until you are on target and you NEVER point a firearm at something you don't want to destroy.

[paulsby]

132. correct

part of the 4 basic rules

also, we check visually AND tactiley.

iow, we don't just look in the chamber. we are required to look AND feel.

[spin]

165. I like that look and feel idea..

one I hadn't heard of before but an excellent idea.

I'll start doing that as an extra back up.

[paulsby]

177. there are some other big ones imo

first of all, when you are cleaning your gun, you never never never have live ammo anywhere near. i unload my gun at the unloading barrel, then put all the ammo in my car and lock it. i check my pockets, etc.

there should NEVER be ammo in the cleaning room.

especially with the glock, which requires a trigger depress before you take it apart

i think another huge one is to verbally call out a codeword (a few times) when you switch from live fire more to "practice mode". iow, if you are doing dry fire practice, or sim guns, plastic guns, or anything like that. you take a few seconds and say "practice mode practice mode practice mode" and seperate that mode from "real life" mode where your weapon is armed.

[spin]

192. All good rules to follow...

There are two classes of shooters, those who have had an accidental discharge and those who are going to.

My object to avoid having an AD if at all possible, and of course if I ever do have one, to have the muzzle of the weapon pointing in a safe direction.

[paulsby]

195. we had an officer

who had an accidental (or more correctly - unintentional discharge is the preferred term) while unloading her shotgun at the loading barrel. it made a HELL of a bang, and needless to say she wasn't holding it in "shotgun mode" iow tight against her shoulder, so she suffered a nasty bruise, but... she did what she was supposed to, and had it pointed in a safe direction while unloading. she didn't even get disciplined because it was acknowledged that no specific training had been given on how to UNLOAD the shotgun.

i actually had my quals yesterday, and i was happy with my shooting. over the years, i've worried less and less about trying to get the best possible score, and more about shooting smoothly, quickly, and with good tactics. i'd rather get a 90% with speed and a good pattern than 98% by taking all the time and doing slow target shooting, which is just not realistic when compared to a good shooting.

i am thinking of getting one of those compensated glocks with some of the top of the slide cut out, and the slightly longer barrel. one of the swat guys has one, and it is absolutely smooth as butter.

[spin]

196. The indoor range I used to shoot at...

had two "unintentional discharges" by a police officer while loading his Glock after two classes.

The first time he shot a Coke machine. He explained it as a slam fire. The second time a month later, he shot a TV.

The strange thing was that he was the police dept. firearms instructor. A position he no longer held after the second incident.

There was a loading barrel in the lounge. Obviously, he didn't see a reason to use it.

The range master during the civilian hours for the range, hung a picture of John Wayne on the Coke machine with Wayne's quote, “Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.”

[paulsby]

199. that's totally unacceptable

and what the hell is a "slam fire?". he's claiming it went off because the slide slammed forward? not buying it? the ONLY way the glock can fire is depressing the trigger, as i am sure you know.

sounds like the traffic instructor we had once, who previously crashed 3 police cars AND a boat in the previous year.

lol

[benEzra]

161. Ummm, most departments PROHIBIT magazine disconnects on duty pistols they procure...

as they consider them more likely to get officers killed, by disabling the gun when an officer is most vulnerable. The majority of department-issue guns---dare I say even in Canada (blasphemy!!)---don't have magazine disconnects, by department requirement.

And if a child is clueless enough to disengage a gun's safety, point the gun at another human being, and pull the trigger as a "joke", what makes you think they'd examine the gun for a teeny bit of red paint on the extractor first? A "loaded chamber indicator" is only visible to someone who knows what the hell to look for (it's not like you can put a big hazard flag and a blinking red light on there), and wouldn't have made a difference in this case; you have to train someone to look for one, just like you have to train them to check the fricking chamber and NEVER treat an "unloaded" gun like it's a toy.

What failed here were the officer's "out of sight, out of mind" storage philosophy and his "abstinence only" approach to gun safety education.

[Euromutt]

201. Another issue is that long guns don't have mag disconnects

At least, none that I've encountered. So if you use long guns as well as handguns, it's a very dangerous habit to get into to assume your firearm can't fire without a magazine in place.

It's also a bad habit if you own a mix of handguns, some with mag disconnects and some without. Three of my five handguns have them, but two don't.

Personally, I'm not a proponent of magazine disconnects (they're an attempt to provide a mechanical solution for a training deficiency) but I'm not dead set against them. I can see that police officers wouldn't want them, but my requirements aren't quite the same as a police department's.

[paulsby]

101. it's called civil rights love

i don't love abortion equipment makers, but i respect the right to choice

i don't love gun makers, but i respect the right to choice (on RKBA)

[proteus_lives]

134. Would you some cheese to go with that wine?

:rofl:

I love good news. Don't you?

[X_Digger]

4. K&R

I'm waiting for someone to try to sue Honda for a drunk using a car Honda made to kill someone.

Whaddya mean that's stupid? If it's valid for guns...

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Outstanding.

The sad part is that Illinois Court of Appeals reinstated part of the suit. So Beretta had to spend money on legal fees.

What effect does this decision have on future cases that may be appealed to the Illinois Court of Appeals? The VPC isn't going to stop trying to sue gun makers.

[iverglas]

32. love that source

and its totally unbiased reporting style.

http://dev.bradycenter.org/legalaction/laprepresenting

On May 5, 2001, thirteen-year old Billy Swan found his father’s Beretta 92FS handgun and removed the magazine that contained its ammunition, believing that this action had unloaded the gun. The gun, however, did not contain one of several commonplace safety features that warned users when a round remained in the chamber or prevented the gun from firing when “unloaded” in this fashion. Believing the gun was unloaded, Billy pulled the trigger, and the bullet hidden in the chamber killed his friend Josh.

Josh’s parents sued Beretta in the Circuit Court of Illinois, alleging that the firearm was unreasonably dangerous as Beretta failed to include effective warnings that indicated to foreseeable users when a round remained in the chamber or that alerted users that the gun could fire when its magazine was removed, and failed to include a magazine disconnect safety, a $10 device invented a century earlier to prevent precisely these sorts of accidents from occurring.

After the Court of Appeals of Illinois held that Beretta could be liable for the shooting because of the gun’s inadequate warnings, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the PLCAA barred the case.

Yup. A lawsuit about the death of a child that would never have happened had the manufacturer followed what appears to be best practices in the industry, that's damned frivolous.


Interesting few other cases described there.

Graham was prohibited from buying guns due to a prior felony conviction for rape and attempted kidnapping and a domestic violence restraining order.

On the morning of September 5, 2003, Graham went to the shop with his grandmother, Imogene Glass. According to Glass, Graham selected a shotgun, and when he informed the owners, Joe George and Patsy George, that he could not buy a gun, they had Glass fill out the paperwork.

Graham then paid for the shotgun and left the store carrying it, along with ammunition he also bought. Later that night, Graham used the gun to kill his son Zeus, then himself.


The Brady Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family of Simone Young Kim, who was shot and killed while working in Juneau, Alaska. The killer, Jason Coday, was a fugitive from justice and a methamphetamine user who was prohibited from buying or possessing guns, yet he was able to walk out of Rayco Sales gun shop with a rifle without being subjected to a background check. Two days later Coday used the gun to kill Kim, a total stranger.


Legal Action Project Takes Utah Dealer to Court for Supplying Shotgun to Underage Mass Murderer

The Brady Center has filed a lawsuit of behalf of Carolyn Tuft and her daughter, Kirsten Hinckley, who were shot while shopping at a mall. On February 12, 2007, five people were killed and four were wounded by a gun-wielding 18-year-old, Sulejman Talovic, at the popular Trolley Square shopping mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. Among his victims were 15-year-old Kirsten Hinckley, who was killed, and her mother, Carolyn Tuft, who survived. Talovic was armed with a Mossberg 12-gauge pump action shotgun with a pistol grip, which he used to shot Kirsten, Carolyn, and all but one of his victims, and a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber five shot revolver.

C'mon, vote for which of those should be tossed out, now. I say all of 'em. Poor gun dealers, innocent victims caught in this ugly crossfire.




aargh, random apostrophes ...

[spin]

39. I also love your source and its unbiased reporting...

The Brady Center is so unbiased and receives universal acclaim for its unbiased reporting style. Give me a break.

As for the Brady Argument for magazine safeties, there are two sides:

The arguments in favor of a magazine disconnect are that if the gun cannot fire without a magazine, then an accidental discharge can be prevented if someone removes the magazine but forgets that a round has been chambered. Also, if losing possession of the firearm is imminent, the operator can render the firearm useless by removing the magazine.

The arguments against a magazine disconnect are that without a magazine the firearm is useless except as a club. Without the feature, if a magazine was lost or otherwise not available, then at least the gun could be chambered with a single round to be used as a single shot firearm. From a technical standpoint, a magazine disconnect adds extra parts to a firearm and thus increases complexity which creates additional risk of component failure while potentially increasing production costs. In some cases, the disconnect adversely affects trigger feel, and hence affects accuracy.

Some experienced firearms operators see little value in having a magazine disconnect due to their belief that proper firearm handling and care offer equal safety. Some also see magazine disconnects being introduced as a way to appease anti-gun politicians, while lessening firearm accuracy, reliability, and safety (for always keeping a defensive weapon ready to fire, even during a tactical reload during a firefight). emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

As to your other "interesting cases", laws already in effect were violated.

[iverglas]

54. got some grounds for disputing the facts it reported?

I certainly had grounds for disputing the "facts" in the other source. They were false.

Nothing you have offered provides any basis for not allowing the issue to be litigated.

[spin]

68. Our Superior Court decided not to hear the case.

Subject: Our Superior Court decided not to hear the case.
Message:
How's that for a basis.

If they felt the case had any merit, they would have taken it up.

Note, if you want to criticize their decision, that's fine. However it's irrelevant.

This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday's Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center's failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms -- a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.

***snip***

Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal remarked, "And so ends a long legal battle -- from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court -- which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer's Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son."
http://www.lvtsg.com/biz_news/publish/Associations/arti...

I know. Lawyers litigate. That's just what they do.

If a boy fell out of a tree and killed himself when he landed on his head, a lawyer would sue God for creating a defective tree. If only he could.

[iverglas]

77. wowsers

Subject: Our Superior Court decided not to hear the case.
Message:
How's that for a basis.

Uh, pretty sad.

The decision in issue here was by your Supreme Court.

Your Supreme Court doesn't actually hear, i.e. try, cases.

The Circuit Court of Illinois granted summary judgment on Beretta's motion to dismiss the action by the dead boy's parents.

The Court of Appeals of Illinois held that Beretta could be liable for the shooting because of the gun’s inadequate warnings.

The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act barred the case.

The plaintiffs went to the US Supreme Court asking for a writ of certiorari that would have compelled the Illinois Supreme Court to do something -- this bit is foreign to me, but it would presumably have led to a trial on the merits, which was never held.

The people who do these things aren't actually complete idiots. You can read and try to understand the facts and law here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AdamesCertPetAppendix082309FINAL.pdf

But hey, once again we have the Guns forum denizens applauding legislation enacted by a right-wing government and upheld by a right-wing court! Yay!

[PavePusher]

123. I wish I had your reading glasses.

They apparently let you see meanings that no-one else can see, even the origonal authors. Amazing.

To paraphrase 'Mall Rats': "Where does she get those wonderful toys?"

[iverglas]

128. well if I had them myself

I might have an inkling of what the fuck you're talking about.

[paulsby]

112. magazine safeties ALSO make the gun less effective

or ineffective actually when doing tactical reloads.

in a tactical reload, you remain on target and CAN shoot while you are changing mags if the threat represents

you can't do that with a magazine disconnect safety

[eqfan592]

40. A magazine releast safety can also get you killed.

If you're using the firearm for any self defense/carry purpose, many people do NOT like the idea of a magazine release safety. This is because it's not impossible to accidentally trigger the magazine release when drawing the firearm, dislodging the magazine, but often not causing it to drop all the way out. The firearm is now inoperable for defensive purposes. This is why many people do not choose firearms with this feature on them for their carry firearm.

This is like saying a car manufacture should be sued because they didn't go out of their way to tell somebody their car didn't have anti-lock breaks. The firearms manual has all this information right inside it. The simple fact is that the owner should have A) made sure their children were unable to access it without their presence, and B) made sure to teach their child the dangers of firearms in the first place, beyond simply telling them "don't touch this because it's dangerous," which was likely not done. Honestly, the biggest question is WTF were the parents doing while all of this was going on?

As for the case of the store selling somebody who actually came out and told them couldn't get a firearm, it does seem to me that the store owners violated the law in that case, and should be punished for doing so.

[iverglas]

37. has one single person in this thread READ THE FACTS

on which this action was based, and read the cause of action asserted in the case?

Your charming source asserts:

The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol.

and not a fucking word of that is truth.

The action was brought by the dead boys' parents. Is "Brady Centre" spelled "Adames"?

The death was not "caused solely" by the actions of the boy in question, any more than a speeding ticket you get when you get caught driving, according to your defective speedometer, at 55 in a 65 zone is "caused solely" by your law-breaking.

The boy in question might well be criminally responsible for the death in some degree, just as you would be responsible for your speeding. But you would bloody well have a cause of action against the manufacturer for the defective speedometer and any damages you suffered as a result of the defect.

Of course, the better analogy here would be a car manufactured without a speedometer ...

[eqfan592]

43. Not even close to a good analogy.

A car cannot be operated safely without a speedometer. The same cannot be said for a magazine release safety. Your analogy holds no water.

[iverglas]

51. "A car cannot be operated safely without a speedometer."

On what planet?

Can I visit?

[eqfan592]

60. I guess it depends on what you consider "safe."

In my opinion, not being able to tell exactly how fast you're going out side of your own senses is a safety hazard. But we're getting off topic here. And I'll point out that you were the one that brought the speedometer into the issue and compared it directly to a supposed safety device, not I.

[iverglas]

65. well, there ya go

In my opinion, not being able to tell exactly how fast you're going out side of your own senses is a safety hazard.

And in many people's opinion, not having "effective warnings that indicated to foreseeable users when a round remained in the chamber or that alerted users that the gun could fire when its magazine was removed" is a safety hazard.

[eqfan592]

73. Did the gun not have a manual?

Was the officer not given any sort of training on it's usage? Was the department somehow ignorant of the fact that the firearm did not have a loaded chamber indicator or a magazine disconnect safety? If not, then your argument has no merit. These features are hardly "standard issue" features, as they are features that many consider to be frivolous and/or unnecessary. If you feel that such a firearm is unsafe, my suggestion would be for you not to purchase one. If the officer thought the firearm was too unsafe for departmental usage, he should have filed a complaint with his superior. Was such a complaint filed?

A speedometer is not a good comparisons with these safety features, as I have already pointed out. An ABS is a better one, though is still not a one to one comparison as an ABS doesn't have the apparent down sides that the magazine disconnect safety has. But some people feel that a car without an ABS is not a safe enough car to drive. These people purchase accordingly. Others feel that standard disk breaks are sufficient. This is their choice to make.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that this case only has merit in the eyes of people who have little knowledge of firearms.

[spin]

80. People with little knowledge of firearms are very commonplace in the anti-gun crowd.

far more commonplace then magazine disconnects or loaded chamber indicators on current pistols.

[iverglas]

84. what knowledge do you have in mind, friend?

And who's lacking it?

[spin]

121. You for one ...

You used a quote from the Brady Center in a post.

But the gun did not contain one of several commonplace safety features that warned users when a round remained in the chamber or prevented the gun from firing when “unloaded” in this fashion. Believing the gun was unloaded, Billy pulled the trigger, and the bullet hidden in the chamber killed his friend Josh.
http://www.bradycenter.org/

Beware of any info you pull from sites like the Brady Center or Gun Guys. Sites like these promote draconian gun control and knowing that most people that visit them ave little or no familiarity with the subject will promote misinformation and propaganda. Cross check any info you see on these sites.

Knowledgeable firearm owners realize that while such safety features do exist, they are not "commonplace". A knowledgeable firearm owner is aware that some people feel such devices are valuable but the majority feel they are unnecessary and make the firearm harder to shoot accurately and can effect the reliability of a firearm.

Knowledgeable firearm owners will point out that the child was totally unaware of basic safety rules. Allowing an untrained child access to any firearm, or any child for that matter, is the fault of the parents not the manufacturer. Many items commonly found in households require training to prevent injury. A table saw is one such example.

In one post I remember when I first joined DU, I mentioned that I carried a handgun in my pocket. You replied that I obviously had no idea what I was talking about as no honest citizen ever carried a handgun in his pocket. I attempted to educate you on firearms such as the S&W model 642 which are designed precisely for that function and the use of pocket holsters.

I enjoy your posts and your sense of humor and ability to dance. Still, if you want to argue a subject, take the time necessary to learn about it.

Now I'm pro-gun but I could easily argue for the anti-gun cause with far more effect than most of the posters who argue that cause here on DU. I know something about firearms.

In this argument, if I were anti-gun I would have used the Ruger single action lawsuit to support my cause.

Over the years Ruger sold a great many SA revolvers, and ignorant fools who didn't bother to read the owner's manual purchased a few of them. A tiny minority of these, who ignored over 100 years of established firearms protocol, managed to accidentally injure themselves by improper loading and handling of Ruger (and other) SA revolvers. Naturally, these greedy idiots refused to accept responsibility for their actions. Rapacious tort lawyers sprang to the attack and by the beginning of the 1970's the successful Sturm, Ruger & Company suddenly found itself the target of unfair but expensive lawsuits.

The result was that Bill Ruger redesigned his single action revolvers in 1973 and created the "New Model" Blackhawk. These revolvers incorporated a new transfer bar ignition system. Opening the loading gate retracts the cylinder bolt, allowing the cylinder to turn for loading. The hammer is not involved.

The New Model Ruger SA revolvers are probably the safest revolvers ever made, and they can be carried fully loaded with six cartridges. New Model Ruger SA revolvers only have two screws in the side of their frames; otherwise they are externally similar to the Old Model Blackhawks.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_blackhawk_vaquero.htm

Note, I purposefully grabbed this info from a pro-gun site. Still Ruger lost a case based on the fact that if the firearm had all six cylinders loaded and was dropped it could discharge. People who were familiar with single action revolvers knew to never fully load the revolver but to leave the chamber under the hammer empty.

Still Ruger had to modify all new their firearms to be safer and offer to alter existing firearms.

The patented Ruger Conversion Kit is an
entirely new operating system for these
revolvers. It can help prevent accidental
discharges caused by a drop or blow to the
hammer if the user has failed to take the basic
safety precaution of keeping the hammer
down on an empty chamber. That’s very
important!
This mechanism can be factory-installed
without any further alteration. The frame and
other major parts will not be affected by this
Conversion. The value of the gun will not be
impaired, and we will return your original
parts for collector’s purposes.
To receive a free factory safety Conversion,
write to us at Sturm, Ruger and Company,
Inc.; Lacey Place, Dept. KC; Southport CT
06890. We will provide you with a shipping
container and instructions. You only pay initial
shipping to our factory. We will cover all
other charges including return shipping costs.
Please write to us without delay if you have
one of these guns, and tell your friends about
the availability of this kit. Remember that the
safest way to carry any older single-action
revolver, regardless of manufacturer, is with
the hammer down on an empty chamber.
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/pdf/safetyOfferAd.pdf

[iverglas]

listen up, okay?

I'm tired of repeating myself.

I've posted a link where you can feel free to read the petition in the case in question.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AdamesCertPetAppendix082309FINAL.pdf

My knowledge is not in issue.

There were grounds of appeal stated in the petition to the US SC. You might want to read them. They don't actually have a whole lot to do with magazines and bullets.

The Questions Presented are:

Section 4(5)(A)(iii) of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. § 7903 (5)(A)(iii) (2005), bars certain lawsuits against the firearms industry when based on state common law, but allows the same claims when based on a state statute “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms, thus preempting state law based on which branch of state government authorized it rather than based on the sweep or content of the state law.

1. Does the Tenth Amendment prohibit Congress from preempting state law based only on whether the law is the product of legislation rather than authoritative judicial decision?

2. Are cases alleging a violation of the Tenth Amendment evaluated solely on whether the federal action being challenged “commandeers” a state executive or legislative officer, or does the analysis also include whether the challenged action attempts to revise or interfere with the structure and sovereign decisions of state government?

3. Do this Court’s statutory construction canons and preemption jurisprudence allow courts to construe the language of the PLCAA to preempt state product liability actions broadly despite Congress’ clearly stated intent not to bar such actions?

Some more from the evidence presented:

Professor Stephen Teret testified on behalf of plain-tiffs as an expert in injury epidemiology. Teret was a professor of epidemiology for the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. Teret testified concerning a survey designed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, reported in the Journal of Public Health Policy. The survey asked respondents whether they thought that a pistol can be shot when the magazine is removed. Out of 1,200 respondents, 65% said that the pistol could be fired if the magazine was removed, 20.3% thought that a pistol could not be discharged after the magazine was removed, 14.5% did not know, and 0.2% refused to answer. Of those that answered either that the pistol could not be discharged after the magazine was removed or that they did not know, 28% lived in a gun-owning household. Teret testified that the absence of a magazine disconnect caused Josh's shooting. Teret further testified that the chamber-loaded warning on the Beretta was not effective. Teret's opinion was that the chamber-loaded warning did not convey that the handgun was loaded.

Beretta's witnesses testified that Beretta has manufactured handguns with magazine disconnects, which adds at most $10 to the $500 price of the gun. Beretta's witnesses agreed that the shooting in this case would not have happened if a magazine disconnect safety had been installed on the gun. Beretta did not include a magazine disconnect safety feature on the Beretta 92FS because there was no market demand for that feature. Beretta's witnesses also testified that for the past 20 years, the vast majority of law enforcement agencies have consistently expressed a preference for no magazine disconnect safety or internal locking device. Law enforcement officers and agencies do not want weapons that may become inoperable by an inadvertent release of the magazine, which could possibly jeopardize the safety of officers and the public.

This is what the appellate court had to say (citations omitted):

With regard to Beretta, the appellate court similarly held that the trial court erred in finding that Billy's actions were an independent intervening cause that superseded Beretta's legal responsibility. Rather, proximate cause in fact was shown because the shooting would not have occurred if the handgun had been properly stored, and it was reasonably foreseeable that this type of harm would occur if the handgun was not properly stored. The appellate court did affirm the trial court's finding that the Beretta was not unreasonably dangerous or defectively designed under both the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test for product liability claims. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Beretta did not have a duty to warn. The appellate court held that plaintiffs' failure to warn claim presented a question of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Finally, the appellate court addressed Beretta's ar-gument that plaintiffs' lawsuit against it should be dismissed pursuant to the recently enacted Protec-tion of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA or the Act). The appellate court noted that, pursuant to the PLCAA, plaintiffs must show that they fall within the excep-tions to the Act in order to avoid its provisions. The appellate court held that plaintiffs failed to show that their claims fell within the PLCAA's exceptions for negligent entrustment or negligence per se, and for breach of contract or warranty. The appellate court held that the only exception that applied in this case is the exception for claims alleg-ing a defect in design or manufacturing, absent a volitional criminal act. The appellate court stated that whether Billy's actions were criminal or unlawful was a question of fact for the trier of fact. If Billy's actions were found to be criminal, the PLCAA would foreclose plaintiffs' claims against Beretta. However, if Billy's actions were found to be purely accidental, the section 7903(5)(A)(v) exception to the PLCAA would apply and the PLCAA would not preclude plaintiffs' claims against Beretta.

This is not an easy case by any means. The firearm in question was actually one acquired and initially possessed by a member of law enforcement personnel. The reasons for it not being equipped with a magazine disconnect may well be very good ones. The ineffectual loaded indicator is another matter.

(Let us never forget that *I* hold no truck with law enforcement personnel having handguns, whether privately acuquired or officially issued, anywhere other than on their persons when on duty, and certainly not in their homes. So there's no dilemma for me here. The firearm should never have been in that individual's home, locked up or otherwise.)


But the grounds for the petition to the US SC and for its decision, and the decisions of the lower courts, actually have bugger all to do with magazine disconnects and loaded indicators. The issues were constitutional.

But since no one here very often bothers to find out anything about what they yammer about, this thread is just the usual YAY YAY YAY BAD BRADYS BEAT AGAIN! crap. Uninformed, stupid, kindergarten-level discourse.

[eqfan592]

137. Actually, the problem is you, Iverglas.

You started this discussion on the basis of the chamber loaded indicator and the magazine disconnect safety. These are the issues we have debated you on. Bringing in the added details about the case now, and claiming that we didn't bother to review it, when you NEVER mentioned the constitutional matters before now and ONLY mentioned the "safety" measures, is intellectually dishonest. We did not bring up the constitutional matters because that wasn't what we were discussing with you, nor was it what you initially started the discussion on. You started talking about the safety and the indicator. You proceeded to get your ass handed to you on those two issues. So now you're trying to say that we're all "ignorant" because we weren't discussing the larger constitutional issues in detail. News flash for you; you weren't either.

[iverglas]

142. nah

The whole thread is a pile of shit in which a bunch of people with an agenda cheer and pat themselves on the back about the defeat of a lawsuit they know nothing about.

I responded to the crap about the nature of the firearm in issue in the case. That was indeed in issue in the lower courts.

But, and forgive me for being slow, I realized that this was not the issue in the US SC, and that I'd been bamboozled by all the ignoramuses and/or spinners putting the focus on something that WAS NOT IN ISSUE in the Supreme Court, and took a closer look.

If you want to blame somebody for not discussing the actual issue, blame the ones doing the spinning.

It took me quite a while to find the petition for certiorari, and I have still not managed to figure out whether there is anything to read from the Court itself -- I assume it dismissed without reasons.

I wasn't the one who started the thread or the discussion. I wasn't the one going YAY YAY BAD BRADYS BEAT and framing the issue falsely.

So take your fingerwagging somewhere else.

[eqfan592]

149. Sorry, my "fingerwagging" is doing just fine right here. (nt)

[spin]

171. Actually an interesting reply and well researched ...

Still the bottom line is:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/12/15/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-against-gun-maker/

The survey by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which showed that many Americans believe that removing a magazine from a firearm disables it, is very interesting. It backs up my contention that firearm safety should be a mandatory class in high school. The Brady Center would do a lot more good if they pushed for firearm safety education in schools rather than playing Don Quixote tilting at windmills.



But I found your comment on police officers and handguns fascinating,

(Let us never forget that *I* hold no truck with law enforcement personnel having handguns, whether privately acuquired or officially issued, anywhere other than on their persons when on duty, and certainly not in their homes. So there's no dilemma for me here. The firearm should never have been in that individual's home, locked up or otherwise.)

A police officer can be a target of a criminal and may have a very good reason to have a firearm in his home to protect his family and himself. Many departments require police officers to carry firearm both on and off duty. I know a police officer who stopped a robbery in progress at a convenience store in Tampa while off duty. Fortunately he had a handgun with him.

Do police in Canada have to leave their weapons at the police station while off duty?

[iverglas]

172. yes indeed

Do police in Canada have to leave their weapons at the police station while off duty?

Absolutely. Those firearms aren't "theirs", they are their employer's, and are tools of their trade, and when they are not on duty they are not plying their trade for their employer. They do not perform the duties of a peace officer in their off hours. They have unions, and they are employees, employed to do a job during the hours of employment.

For private possession of firearms, they are subject to the same rules as anybody else. Which include having a licence to acquire and possess a restricted firearm if they wish to own handguns, and meeting the same requirements for that licence: being a member of a gun club and transporting/using the handgun only to and from / at the club, and keeping it locked up, unloaded and separate from ammunition, when not doing that (and locked in some sort of secure container while in transit).

It may be that some cops on extended undercover assignments where they are essentially "on duty" at all times in their fictional life carry handguns during technically off-duty hours. I wouldn't be surprised or distressed, if so. Otherwise, to have a permit to carry a firearm when off duty, a cop would have to meet the requirement in the Criminal Code:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-207/latest/sor-98-207.html

Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, SOR/98-207

... CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT

Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;
(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or
(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

What cops say: ;)

http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2009/02/24/carrying-a-concealed-weapon/

A lot of the cops and others posting there are actually in the US, and it can be hard to tell who is. There's reference to the off-the-clock aspect. And you get morons spouting ignorant gibberish like:

Only in our law, it is up to the sole descresion of the provincial Chief Firearms Officer weather or not you deserve the right to defend yourself.

-- completely false on all counts, since the CFO's decision is reviewable and CFOs make decisions about firearms permits, not about who deserves anything.

I very much doubt that any cop I've met would want police to be carrying firearms around off duty. I was talking to a cop a couple of years ago who had an English cop riding with him. Didn't think to instigate a discussion of it at the time, dang.

[spin]

182. Most police officers I know prefer to carry off duty ...

some have extensive gun collections.

I remember a police officer who was rooming with us who quit the local department. He felt the establishment in the small town felt that a certain privileged view deserved special treatment. Like being allow to drive while being intoxicated.

The ex-officer, my daughter and myself went to to a local restaurant. He nervously asked if we were carrying. Of course, both my daughter and myself were armed. Since he no longer worked for a police department and did not have a concealed carry license, he wasn't.

Some police that I've talked to have said they are really on duty 24/7.

They sure don't get paid for it. I had a lot of respect for those in law enforcement. The Thin Blue Line.

[iverglas]

83. "a tale told by an idiot,

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Shakespeare just sprang to my mind all unbidden, I guess.


A device that tells you what speed your car is going is not comparable to a device that tells you whether there is a bullet in your gun. But a device that tells you what latitude you're at is. Whee. Your planet must be fun.

[eqfan592]

88. Thank you for pointing out that you don't know what an ABS is.

An ABS, otherwise known as an Anti-lock Breaking/Break System, has nothing to do with telling you what latitude you are at. That you think it does only underscores your ignorance of cars to go along with your ignorance of firearms. It is an optional piece of safety equipment, unlike a speedometer which is standard on all vehicles. Thus, an ABS is more comparable to features such as a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect safety, as these features are not standard in the least on most firearms.

If you want to know if there is a cartridge in your firearm, your best bet is to open the slide and look for yourself, which is what anybody that has ever taken a firearms safety class is trained to do.

[iverglas]

91. oh, whatever

At least I didn't stick my key in the transmission this time.

Yes, my poor addled brain and fuzzy eye misperceived the acronym.

But no, an ABS is not comparable to a loaded indicator. Damn, you do try hard, though.

A speedometer tells you how fast you're going, so you can adjust your behaviour accordingly if you choose.
A loaded indicator tells you whether there is a bullet in your firearm, so you can adjust your behaviour accordingly if you choose.

An anti-lock braking system affects the performance of the object it is installed in. Just not comparable at all, is it?


If you want to know if there is a cartridge in your firearm, your best bet is to open the slide and look for yourself, which is what anybody that has ever taken a firearms safety class is trained to do.

And nobody who has never taken a firearms safety course ever comes into possession of a firearm.

And no firearms manufacturer could ever possibly foresee that someone who has never taken a firearms safety course ... or a child who has been given all the firearms safety instruction it could eat and simply didn't recall / didn't heed it all ... would ever come into possession of one of its firearms.

No sirree bobbers.

[eqfan592]

98. Wow, for somebody who hates strawman arguments so much...

...you just used a heck of a big one at the end of your post. Does that make you a vile, disgusting, ugly right-winger?

Yes, the ABS system does make a better analogy with the loaded chamber indicator, not because of the function of either but because of the fact that they are both non-standard features, as I've already said at least once.

And have you ever seen a loaded chamber indicator? None of the ones I have ever seen would be obvious to anybody who wasn't given at least some training on the firearm, usually amounting to little more than a small protrusion along the side of the firearm that is only clearly visible when looking down the length of the firearm. It is highly unlikely that anybody without firearms training or experience would know what it was, and anybody foolish enough to play around with a firearm as a toy in the first place isn't likely to take notice of it. This is why it is not an effective means of informing a non-firearm user that there is a round in the chamber. The loaded chamber indicator can be useful to someone who knows how to use the firearm properly.

Firearms safety training for kids would help with such issues, but they would also reduce the importance of the features as well.

[iverglas]

111. I keep tellin ya

You just really don't know what a "strawman argument" is. Please, believe me. Or demonstrate otherwise.


Yes, the ABS system does make a better analogy with the loaded chamber indicator, not because of the function of either but because of the fact that they are both non-standard features, as I've already said at least once.

If only this were remotely as relevant to the situation at hand as the fact that a speedometer and a loaded indicator are both SAFETY FEATURES that assist a user by enabling them to determine whether they are using the item safely. Ye dogs and little fishies.

An analogy actually does have to be based on something that is relevant to the purpose for which it is used, you know.


And have you ever seen a loaded chamber indicator? None of the ones I have ever seen would be obvious to anybody who wasn't given at least some training on the firearm, usually amounting to little more than a small protrusion along the side of the firearm that is only clearly visible when looking down the length of the firearm.

Post 107, excerpt from facts and expert testimony.

Don't you prefer to know what you're talking about before you do it?

[eqfan592]

118. An ABS IS a safety feature.

And somebody such as yourself who lives in a cold climate should be fully aware of this fact. Implying otherwise only makes you look ignorant.

And from your previous post,

"And nobody who has never taken a firearms safety course ever comes into possession of a firearm.

And no firearms manufacturer could ever possibly foresee that someone who has never taken a firearms safety course ... or a child who has been given all the firearms safety instruction it could eat and simply didn't recall / didn't heed it all ... would ever come into possession of one of its firearms."

You are attributing arguments to me that were never stated by me and attempting to damage my previous argument with them using sarcasm. Seems very much like a "straw man" argument.

I've read post 107 and responded. The so-called "expert" testimony gave no indication of exactly how the loaded chamber indicator should be improved to make it more obvious to someone who is a non-gun owner. No loaded chamber indicator I have ever seen was what a non-gun user would classify as "highly visible," and there is intent behind that. Also, it is VERY easy to tell if a firearm has a magazine disconnect safety. Typically it is visible in the magazine well, as well as a simple function test will show you if it has one or not.

[iverglas]

124. and I'll just keep trying to help you

since you don't seem to be able to read complete sentences.

An ABS IS a safety feature.

And now what I said, with a little emphasis to help you:

a speedometer and a loaded indicator are both SAFETY FEATURES that assist a user by enabling them to determine whether they are using the item safely

These are the most directly comparable features of a motor vehicle and a firearm. A loaded indicator doesn't slow the bullet down, or stop the bullet from exiting the firearm, or do anything else comparable to what an ABS does.


You are attributing arguments to me that were never stated by me and attempting to damage my previous argument with them using sarcasm.

You said this:

If you want to know if there is a cartridge in your firearm, your best bet is to open the slide and look for yourself, which is what anybody that has ever taken a firearms safety class is trained to do.

If you didn't think that it was relevant to refer to what somebody who had taken a firearms safety class would do, maybe you wouldn't have done it.

Presumably you said that for a reason.

Assertions about what somebody who has taken a safety course would do would be relevant if only persons who had taken safety classes were in issue. That is plainly not the case. The entire point is that firearms -- entirely foreseeably, specifically to manufacturers -- do come into the hands of children and people who have not taken safety classes. So, what a person who had taken such a class has been trained to do just really is not relevant.

So I responded to your assertion sarcastically, you betcha. To demonstrate its irrelevance.

There was no basis for you to infer and then state that I was attempting to portray you has having said that no one who has never taken a firearms safety class ever comes into possession of a firearm. I attributed nothing to you. I dismissed your statement as irrelevant, because of what I stated (by sarcastically stating the opposite).

I could just as easily have said: large numbers of people who have never taken a firearms safety class come into possession of firearms one way or another, so what is your point? That wouldn't have been as much fun. And you'd probably have said it was a "strawman argument" anyway.

Tell ya what. Next time I see somebody engaging in a "strawman argument" hereabouts, I'll give you a shout, so you can see how it works.

[eqfan592]

133. You originally placed the emphasis on "safety features"

The implication being that you did not consider an ABS to be a safety feature. It's not my fault you are incapable of emphasizing the correct part of your post. You should have underlined the area you wish to emphasize in your first posting and left "safety features" as lower case. But that's your problem, not mine.

As for a loaded chamber indicator assisting with safety in the same manner as a speedometer, I disagree. First of all, chamber loaded or no, you are NEVER to point a firearm at any object that you are prepared to destroy. A loaded chamber indicator may work against this basic rule of safety as the implication is that if the chamber is empty, you are somehow able to treat the firearm with less respect than if it were loaded.

Secondly, it's another point of failure for the firearm. If the indicator starts reporting incorrectly, it may lead people to have the impression that a firearm's chamber is empty when it is not. This, combined with the relaxed attitude it can create in general, is a recipe for disaster. What's sad is that such an indicator could actually lead to more lawsuits against manufactures. Any mechanical device can and will eventually fail. Failure of such an indicator device could lead to lawsuits that actually have more merit than the one we are talking about.

Speedometers and loaded chamber indicators are simply in two different degrees of importance and usefulness, with a speedometer being far more important and useful.

"Assertions about what somebody who has taken a safety course would do would be relevant if only persons who had taken safety classes were in issue. That is plainly not the case. The entire point is that firearms -- entirely foreseeably, specifically to manufacturers -- do come into the hands of children and people who have not taken safety classes. So, what a person who had taken such a class has been trained to do just really is not relevant."

It is ENTIRELY relevant as one of the primary arguments that I and others have made here is that the solution to this problem is more firearms safety training. It is also relevant when discussing the issue of loaded chamber indicator because none that exist currently would be at all effective if the firearms are in the hands of somebody who has not received training, thus making any sort of case that a loaded chamber indicator would have prevented this tragedy is ridiculous. Yes, I know the "expert" stated that the loaded chamber indicator needed to be made more "clear." But he also fails to provide an example of one that would be clear enough in his book. Frankly, outside of having an indicator that clearly states "loaded chamber," which is not likely to be practical, there is no loaded chamber indicator in existence now that a non-gun user would be able to pick up on.

It all comes down to training, Iverglas. Proper safety training would prevent many more accidents than all the loaded chamber and magazine disconnect safeties in the world.

[iverglas]

139. I keep tripping on those goddamned stone tablets

Proper safety training would prevent many more accidents than all the loaded chamber and magazine disconnect safeties in the world.

Training does not prevent ANYTHING. People's behaviour determines outcomes. People who have had training are indeed often less likely to engage in risky behaviours. But there is absolutely no impediment to people who have had training engaging in risky behaviours, and they very much can and do.

And here we go again: no, there is nothing safe about training a 13-yr-old sufficiently in the use of firearms that he would have known these various things about the firearm in question.


First of all, chamber loaded or no, you are NEVER to point a firearm at any object that you are {not} prepared to destroy. A loaded chamber indicator may work against this basic rule of safety as the implication is that if the chamber is empty, you are somehow able to treat the firearm with less respect than if it were loaded.

It's a fucking inanimate object. I don't treat inanimate objects with "respect". What sane person would?

"You are NEVER to ..." doesn't cut much ice with me, I'm afraid.

You are never to speed. You are never to jaywalk. You are never to turn the hot water on first. You are never to leave prescription drugs or cigarette lighters where children can access them. You, aged 3 or 6 or 9, are never to play with prescription drugs or cigarette lighters. Or guns.

PEOPLE DO ALL THOSE THINGS despite how many times their parents and public service ads tell them not to. And the entire world knows that people do those and many other stupid things.

So in this strange modern society of ours, we take steps, and require that manufacturers of products use by people take steps, to reduce risks.

My prescription drugs can be opened, and my cigarette lighter can be lit, by children making casual attempts. Where speeding is particularly risky, there are bumps in the road or stop signs or other interferences. Where jaywalking is particularly risky, there are fences between sidewalk and roadway. Things like that.

I find childproof lids on prescription drugs to be a really annoying thing that wastes my time. And I have a callous on my thumb now because of the force it takes to strike a light. If I were to behave like gun militants, I'd be lobbying and agitating to have those features removed from stuff that I have a right to own and use.

Children who get access to prescription drugs and cigarette lighters are entitled to protection from harm that could have been prevented by keeping the drugs or lighters away from them (not that there are many guaranteed barriers to much of anything in our world) -- but children who get access to guns aren't?

Okay.

[eqfan592]

152. Nicely done iverglas.

You establish the problem very clearly.

"It's a fucking inanimate object. I don't treat inanimate objects with "respect". What sane person would?"

It's an inanimate object that can potentially kill you or someone else. People don't "respect" cigarette lighters, prescription drugs, etc. etc, so bad things happen. Also, proper firearms training is not simply a "just say no" style campaign, as it is with many of the other things you bring up. It first teaches respect (something you'll never do because your "sane," or so you claim) of the firearm and it's potential to kill, and it then teaches proper and safe handling. I never once claimed that this would be any sort of cure all and that people would NEVER get hurt if we emphasized this training, but this sort of training IS effective at preventing accidents such as this.

[beevul]

154. You don't do a lot of things.

"I don't treat inanimate objects with "respect". What sane person would?"

One that didn't want to accidentally/negligently discharge a firearm, and/or injure themselves or others.


"no, there is nothing safe about training a 13-yr-old sufficiently in the use of firearms that he would have known these various things about the firearm in question."

Is that even a sentence?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

155. aaargh, unfixed typo

Just in case anyone got confused.

Obviously,

My prescription drugs can be opened, and my cigarette lighter can be lit, by children making casual attempts.

was supposed to say

My prescription drugs canNOT be opened, and my cigarette lighter canNOT be lit, by children making casual attempts.

[rd_kent]

169. Completely worng. 100% completley wrong.

a loaded indicator are both SAFETY FEATURES that assist a user by enabling them to determine whether they are using the item safely


A "loaded indicator" is NOT needed to use a firearm safely. Not needed, not needed at all. Sure, its a neat feature, but it it NOT NEEDED to safely operate the weapon. Not Needed, not needed at all. Got it?

[iverglas]

173. somebody say it was?

What is wrong with you that you can't read what someone says and reply to it?

I said: SAFETY FEATURES that assist a user by enabling them to determine whether they are using the item safely

I DID NOT SAY that it was "needed to use a firearm safely". NOT.

A speedometer is not needed to use a motor vehicle safely. I can tell perfectly well whether I am driving slow enough on my street to be legal (since I never drive faster than half the speed limit on it anyway), or slow enough on the highway to be legal (all I'd have to do is drive slower than everybody else on the road, of course).

But it enables me to determine whether I am using the vehicle "safely" to the extent that speed is a measure of safety. (It might not be, if I were trying to get away from a tornado ...) Ditto a loaded indicator: it enables a user to determine whether they are using a firearm "safely" to the extent that whether the there is a bullet in the chamber is a measure of safety.

NOT "needed". GET IT?

Now you pore over that and see whether you can find something to misrepresent.


For any interested readers: what we had here was indeed a classic "strawman argument". An argument I didn't make was soundly defeated. It always calls for a round of applause.

[rd_kent]

189. You were the one that propped it up to start....

The death was not "caused solely" by the actions of the boy in question, any more than a speeding ticket you get when you get caught driving, according to your defective speedometer, at 55 in a 65 zone is "caused solely" by your law-breaking. Only the boy, and his parents, are to blame for this death. There was nothing defective about the gun at all. It worked as advertised. Having a "loaded indicator" is not needed, nor was the gun defective because it did not have one.

The boy in question might well be criminally responsible for the death in some degree, just as you would be responsible for your speeding. But you would bloody well have a cause of action against the manufacturer for the defective speedometer and any damages you suffered as a result of the defect. What action does one have against the manufacturer of the gun? It worked as advertised. Again, having a "loaded indicator" is not needed, nor was the gun defective because it did not have one.

Of course, the better analogy here would be a car manufactured without a speedometer ... You were the one to bring this up, Iver, YOU own THIS strawman......




BOOYAH!!!!

[rd_kent]

168. Wow, you sure can bob and weave better than Ali!

Are you trying to pull a rope-a-dope?

[AtheistCrusader]

100. A loaded chamber indicator is a point of failure for an unsupported case kB!

Lets see, do I want my gun less likely to blow up in my hand, or more likely for a stranger who has somehow acquired physical possession of my firearm, but not the manual, and thus with likely no idea what the loaded chamber indicator might mean, to ignore the warning and fire the gun anyway?

My Springfield XD does in fact have, not only a loaded chamber indicator, but also a cocking indicator. If some random person on the street picked up the firearm, and did not review the manual, said person would have zero clue what the loaded chamber indicator meant.

There is no surface on the firearm large enough to print the manual upon.

[beevul]

104. You are reaching.

"And no firearms manufacturer could ever possibly foresee that someone who has never taken a firearms safety course ... or a child who has been given all the firearms safety instruction it could eat and simply didn't recall / didn't heed it all ... would ever come into possession of one of its firearms."

Right...but a child who has been given all the firearms safety instruction it could eat and simply didn't recall / didn't heed it all would have thier behavior changed by a "chamber loaded indicator"?

And someone who has never taken a firearms safety course...thier behavior changed by a "chamber loaded indicator"?

Puhleeze.

[slackmaster]

164. The "chamber loaded indicator" first appeared on the Walther P.38 military pistol

Its original purpose was to help the shooter determine that the gun is ready to fire, even dark conditions.

The chamber loaded indicator (a small plunger) is located where it can easily be checked with the shooter's thumb, as are the manual safety and the hammer. All three must be in the proper orientation for the gun to be ready to shoot.

Without the chamber loaded indicator, it would be necessary to rack the action to ensure that the gun is loaded. That could waste a valuable round of ammunition, time, and give away the shooter's position. So the real function of the chamber loaded indicator is not for safety per se, but to provide a positive indication that the weapon is in Condition 1.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. Correction

Condition 0

Condition 1 implies a remaining engaged safety.

[rd_kent]

167. A speedometer is needed for safe operation of a car. A "loaded indicator" is not needed for safe

operation of a gun. No sirree bobbers.

An anti-lock braking system affects the performance of the object it is installed in. Just not comparable at all, is it?

Actually, ABS is an optional SAFETY feature so it IS comparable, isn't it?



And no firearms manufacturer could ever possibly foresee that someone who has never taken a firearms safety course ... or a child who has been given all the firearms safety instruction it could eat and simply didn't recall / didn't heed it all ... would ever come into possession of one of its firearms.

Why would anyone that has not had a firearms safety course recognize or know what a "loaded indicator" was in the first place? Sure, its a neat feature for those that KNOW WHAT THE FEATURE IS, but for the inexperienced, its just another piece of the weapon they don't know anything about.

[Euromutt]

159. I think an automatic transmission is a better analogy than ABS for a magazine disconnect

It could be argued that an automatic transmission is a "safety feature," in that it relieves the driver of the need to pay attention to shifting gears (thereby removing a distraction from paying attention to the road). But a certain percentage of drivers prefer manual transmissions, because they afford more control over the vehicle, permit greater fuel efficiency (if used properly), etc. Furthermore, they feel that, even though an automatic transmission does allow the driver to downshift when more traction is required, drivers who have no experience with manually operating the gearshift will not know when or how to downshift with sufficient speed. Moreover, the attention (and the hand) supposedly freed up by the automatic transmission will, more often than not, not be spent watching the road, but twiddling with the stereo, manipulating a beverage, what have you.

A loaded chamber indicator is perhaps more analogous to a warning light that your seatbelt isn't buckled properly. Certain jurisdictions require it, but a decent driver ought to not need it in the first place, plus there's the risk that someone who has allowed himself to become reliant on it will be caught out in the event the light burns out or otherwise malfunctions.

[spin]

44. Suppose you had a button on the dash that would cause the speedometer to pop out...

just like a pistol has a magazine release. If the speedometer was removed the car would not operate.

You accidentally hit the button and suddenly your vehicle is merely a projective speeding down the highway without steering or brakes or power.

[eqfan592]

47. Yep, that's similar to the point I was making above.

A magazine release (or disconnect) safety has it's pluses and minuses, and in the eyes of many who carry for defensive purposes, the minuses out weight the pluses.

[spin]

50. One reason I would not consider an S&W pistol for self defense...

I do own a Model .41 .22 cal target pistol for target shooting. It's the only S&W semi-auto that I own or will own.

[Euromutt]

160. Magazine disconnects are optional on the M&P series

I have two M&Ps that both have magazine disconnects, because I wanted the internal lock option, and on the M&P, the lock prevents the gun from operating by engaging the magazine disconnect (even if there is a magazine in place), so you can't get the lock without the disconnect. But the weapon is available without those features.

[iverglas]

52. Haven't read the facts yet, have ya?

Didn't think so.

[spin]

59. Nice try but lame...

obviously you have little technical knowledge of firearms, which is no surprise.

A pistol without a magazine disconnect is not a defective firearm. To some people a magazine disconnect is a good idea, to many others its a poor idea.

The weapon in question was department issued. The police department didn't believe that a magazine disconnect was necessary for their officers. If they did they might have bought S&W pistols.

The Glock pistol is probably the most common firearm carried by police in the U.S. Guess what, no magazine disconnect.

[iverglas]

66. do you have eye trouble too?

The gun, however, did not contain one of several commonplace safety features that warned users when a round remained in the chamber or prevented the gun from firing when “unloaded” in this fashion. Believing the gun was unloaded, Billy pulled the trigger, and the bullet hidden in the chamber killed his friend Josh.

[jefflrrp]

72. Please, allow me to be callous, horrible, self-serving, mean . . .

yadda yadda yadda.

But .....


The kid took the magazine out, thought it was unloaded, and then pointed it at his friend and then I guess pulled the trigger.

I doubt however that a loaded-chamber indicator would have done any good for the kid if hes already playing around with a gun. Its his fault for not checking chamber (or rather his parent's fault for not teaching him correct gun safety procedures) and then pointing it at someone, even while horsing around.

I call bullshit on the suit, and so did the Court too. There are very few guns I know of that have loaded chamber indicators (the Springfield XD series being one that does). The gun did what it was supposed to do. In this case, with the info we have here, it seems that no amount of safety features would have magically stopped the kid from shooting his friend. He was already being an idiot and being unsafe.

Commonplace safety feature my ass.

You can't legislate (or in this case, rule for ...) stupidity.

The parent(s) should be charged.

[spin]

75. Welcome to DU. (n/t)

[iverglas]

85. well your opinion just rules

Remind me to seek you out if I need a spare opinion in future.

[jefflrrp]

108. yep. I'll be there for you . . . .

to call out all of your nonsensical bullshit.

:hi:

[Tejas]

120. You are hereby nominated to babysit the Canadian

It seems that foreigners such as iverglas have a multitude of problems with US gun laws. Apparently 20,000 laws are not enough so she does what she can here to influence US gun owners to turn in their tools of mass destruction asap. This of course will keep Canada safe from invasion, cure their drug problems, their motorcycle gang problems, etc etc etc and she can then turn to much more daunting tasks such as saving mooses and elkeses.



By the way jefflrrp, welcome to the Gungeon.

[jefflrrp]

127. thanks tejas & spin

I'm a loooooonnnngggggtime lurker. I haven't posted very often, but since I'm now out of school for good, I figure I'd have a bit more time to debate things.

[iverglas]

143. suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you are

I'm a loooooonnnngggggtime lurker. I haven't posted very often, but since I'm now out of school for good, I figure I'd have a bit more time to debate things.

And there are a lot of, er, gullible people around here!

[jefflrrp]

148. Problem, iverglas?

I just received (well, I won't have the actual document in hand until March) my BA in history. I spent most of this semester doing the capstone thesis paper/research project, so when I would get home, I view a few subforums on DU but don't have the energy to think and post things.

But thanks for the interest :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

150. oh dear, already it starts

Me having less than zero interest in your academic career, it was not the subject of my comment.

[jefflrrp]

153. oops. duly noted n/t

[spin]

74. Commonplace?

The most popular handgun sold in the U.S. today is the Glock 19 closely followed by the 40 cal Glocks.

No magazine disconnect.


I assume you got the info about safety features from the Brady Center.

Colt 1911 style firearms are very popular in the U.S. Do they have a magazine disconnect? NO!

I could go through a list of manufacturers that do and don't have magazine disconnects or loaded indicators but I'll just sum it up and say that they are nowhere near "commonplace" by the definition in Websters. They exist. In reality they are probably as commonplace as stick shifts on automobiles.

It takes a little training to handle a firearm. Because of the anti-gun crowd such training is rarely available in American Society. It should be a required course in high school but you can thank groups like the Brady Center for opposing such a commonsense idea.

If nothing else every child in the U.S. should be taught these rules: A 30 second TV commercial could do this.

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.

2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.


3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

[eqfan592]

79. Ya beat me too it Spin!

But that's OK, cuz you did a much better job making the point than I did :)

[spin]

81. The next time you'll make the better point.

Thanks for the compliment.

[iverglas]

87. huh

California has required magazine disconnects on new handgun designs since 2007. Yes, I know, California is populated by loons.


I'm really sick of these lectures about teaching children how to use guns, so if you wouldn't mind, could you just aim them at someone else? I'm really not interested.

[eqfan592]

90. California isn't populated by loons...

..but the people that make these laws may be.

And California having this requirement does not make the features common place. There is a reason why many firearms vendors do not sell to California.

[spin]

126. California is just one state...

rules in California have no effect on other states such as Florida.

Fortunately.

California has earthquakes. Florida has hurricanes. Canada has blizzards.

Given the choice, I decided to live in Florida.

[iverglas]

144. you sure did get your name right

rules in California have no effect on other states such as Florida.

The price of tea in China come into this at all?

[eqfan592]

76. Also, another point.

Your quote says that these are "commonplace safety features." This is simply not true. I can't say I would qualify these features as "rare" but they are hardly "commonplace" either.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. Magazine disconnect safeties can be a hazard to the user in a fight.

Those of us who learn self defense and actually practice are taught and drilled to count your rounds as you fire them. After all, learning that you are empty by hearing the gun go "Click" instead of "Bang" when pointed at someone who is trying to kill you is a real bad time and way to discover that you are empty. So when the count reaches one less than the number of rounds in the gun, we are taught to quickly switch out magazines. Because there is still a round in the chamber, the slide does not need to be recycled. If, while in a fight and switching magazines, you suddenly need to fire that bullet in the chamber, it is a bad thing to not be able to shoot the gun because the gun has a magazine disconnect.

Some guns are optimally designed for combat, and must be handled as such. In fact, all guns should be handled as if they were combat designs.

[iverglas]

99. the diversionary grooming is making me dizzy

GUN-LOADED INDICATOR.

There, nice big letters, can't miss it now.

Apparently Massachusetts requires this too.


http://www.beretta90two.com/index.aspx?m=53&did=78

HUH.

[eqfan592]

105. There's nothing diversionary about it.

You've been going on and on to a great degree about both features. Attempting to show otherwise is disingenuous. And you are yet to address the issues brought up with a loaded chamber indicator, mainly the fact that a person without training would not be able to ID what loaded chamber indicator even was, therefore its usefulness in preventing tragedies such as this would be non-existent.

[iverglas]

113. Excuse me???

You've been going on and on to a great degree about both features. Attempting to show otherwise is disingenuous.

I QUOTED a piece from the site of a party to the petition.

Since then, I have been met with a barrage of yammering about ONE FEATURE and one feature only.

Mirror, mirror.

Read anything yet?

[eqfan592]

119. Actually, both features have been mentioned by myself...

..and others prior to this post. Nice try, though. ;)

[GreenStormCloud]

109. I was addressing one of the two complaints you were making.

That I addressed one does not require me to address the other one.

[Indy Lurker]

117. Gun load indicators are useless

They serve no purpose.


They go against the first rule of gun safety.

Always treat a gun as if is loaded until you have personally inspected the chamber.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. Not entirely useless.

If I grab my springfield out of the safe in the dark, I can verify the chamber is occupied, and the hammer is cocked without racking the slide.

I consider that a good indicator that if I pull the trigger, I can be assured the pistol will go 'bang' and not 'click', without giving away my position to perform the verification.

Never know, maybe the wife might have unloaded it, cleaning the safe or something.

[spin]

130. I spent some time in Massachusetts when I was in the service...

I wasn't overly impressed with the inhabitants.

They talked strange and felt they were superior to the rest of the country.

Cape Cod was very scenic and I enjoyed the fishing.

[ManiacJoe]

135. Misleading picture on that web site.

The red dot they show in the picture is not the "chamber loaded" indicator. It is the safety-off indicator.

The chamber-loaded indicator, if it was indicating, would not be visible from this angle, but only from the top of the gun. However, since the extractor is flush with the side of the gun (thus not showing red from the top), the chamber is empty.

It should also be noted that this "chamber loaded indicator" has always been on the 92/96 series Berettas due to it being nothing more than the extractor sticking out due to a round being in the gun. However, someone (probably in marketing) came up with the lame idea of putting red paint on it and calling it a "loaded chamber" indicator. If you don't keep the gun immaculately clean, that red paint stops being red really quick. :-)

[iverglas]

146. good god, it's a BERETTA website

Kindly address your complaint to them.

[ManiacJoe]

147. Just pointing out the facts.

Did you really think that I expected you do fix the error?!?!?!
:rofl:

[davepc]

170. google "Beretta Chamber loaded indicator" and you'll find an actual pitcture of one

The link you posted is showing the safety, not the chamber loaded indicator.

[AtheistCrusader]

187. Safety OFF should be GREEN.

Safety ON should be RED.

I've always thought the industry had it completely backwards. The point of a gun is to fire, ostensibly, in dire need. If the safety is on, you're screwed. Green, good to go.

[jeepnstein]

193. Shouldn't matter...

If you have to look at the safety to know it's condition, well, all aboard the fail boat. Same with the loaded chamber indicator. What a load of rubbish that is. It does nothing to improve safety. Nothing but a feel-good measure.

Anyone who has to rely on some kind of color coded device to tell them if a weapon is safe or not does not need to be armed.

[GreenStormCloud]

197. It can be handy for a gun that you aren't familiar with.

Some guns have the safety in one position, some in the opposite. Some you push up, some you push down, some left, some right. With my guns I know the status and positions, but if I encounter a different gun I likely won't know. Then the color can be an aid.

Of course, the standard safety rules should ALWAYS be observed.

[Katya Mullethov]

138. But some states require them

Why not require each firearm to be chained to an old car wheel like the key to a gas station bathroom ? Equally helpful .

I will not carry a weapon with any safties. I will abide with it . Similar to smilies and vulgarity , they are an encumberance and a crutch .

[Indy Lurker]

70. Using Brady logic

Car manufacturers should be held responsible for deaths caused by drunk drivers.

After all it is foreseeable that a drunk will some day drive their car.

If only they installed breathalyzer ignition locks, which sell for under around $1200, less than 5% of the average new car price, they could save thousands of lives a year.

[iverglas]

94. nopers

If only they installed breathalyzer ignition locks, which sell for under around $1200, less than 5% of the average new car price, they could save thousands of lives a year.

But if they install a speedometer and the drunk crashes into something at 120 mph, the manufacturer will quite rightly be off the hook in any lawsuit based on its manufacture of a car capable of going 120 mph.

Hey, good one!

[Indy Lurker]

102. Nopers?

Are you saying thousands of lives wouldn't be saved every year if every car had a breathalyzer ignition lock?

[iverglas]

115. stopped beating that poor dog yet?

[rd_kent]

166. Don't take it personally. You used a good example. For some reason, good examples fall on deaf ears

You will never be able to use a logical example like yours with this one. It just will not be accepted as it disproves the whole anti-gun meme.

[GreenStormCloud]

114. What effect does this have on future similar cases?

VPC will be back, suing gun makers again, with similar cases. It doesn't matter to them that the cases are meritless. The objective is to run up the legal costs for the gun companies, hopefully to drive them out of business. Failing that, they would be happy to see a company withdraw completely from the civilian market, as Colt has done.

[beevul]

151. I actually...

I actually own a close relative of the model 92fs - the model 96fs - with skeletonized hammer, extended mag release, 96d hammer spring and recoil rod spring (all of the above make it a better shooter). Other than being a different caliber than the 92fs mentioned in the court case, it is otherwise essentially an identical firearm in terms of features, fit and finish, and design.

I find it to be as safe as anyone could possibly expect a handgun to be, and a well built finely engineered quality firearm.

Though the de-cocker might be a bit odd to those not familiar with one, or expecting one. And those with small hands may not "fit" one well.